We all are familiar with New York\u2019s Bottle Bill. That\u2019s the law that requires a nickel deposit on some beverage containers \u2013 soda, beer, and water. It\u2019s been on the books for over 40 years. The laudable goal of the law is to divert some beverage containers from landfills and incinerators to the companies that make the products so that they can be recycled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s worked reasonably well<\/a> over its long \u201clife\u201d in New York. But for the law to work best, the purchasing consumer should have easy ways to get their nickel back. If it\u2019s hard to get, it essentially becomes a \u201ctax\u201d that makes soft drinks and water container purchases less affordable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the law was originally approved back when Hugh Carey was governor, it included a requirement that helped make it easier for the consumer to understand how to get their deposit back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law requires the posting of a sign<\/a> informing consumers about how to get their deposit back and how to complain if they have a problem doing so. The law is very detailed in how it should be written and where it should be posted at the retailer who sells the products. The law says that the \u201csign must be no less than eight inches by ten inches in size and have lettering a minimum of one quarter inch high, and of a color which contrasts with the background. The department shall maintain a toll-free telephone number for a \u2018bottle bill complaint line.\u2019” This became what\u2019s known as the Bottle Bill \u201cBill of Rights.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The law states that the sign must be posted at the \u201cpoint of sale\u201d \u2013 meaning where the consumer pays for the product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the clear language in the law, most people would say they have never seen such a sign. To test whether those anecdotes represent a failure of the law was put to the test by community volunteers all across New York State earlier this Fall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last week, a coalition of environmentalists, charities, and civic groups released a compliance-check survey showing a widespread failure<\/em> of retailers to post a Bottle Bill \u201cBill of Rights\u201d sign as required by state law. The survey<\/a> of nearly 300 retailers across New York State found that 80 percent failed to post the signs visibly and that an additional 10 percent did not post those signs at the \u201cpoint of sale\u201d as required by the state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Only 10 percent posted the sign as required by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a letter to Governor Hochul, the groups called on the Administration to \u201cdirect the DEC to act to ensure that all retailers are aware of, and comply with, New York\u2019s \u2018Bottle Bill\u2019 signage law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The groups also noted that \u201cThe lack of the required signage is no small matter. If consumers are unaware that they can return their used beverage containers to the store at which they purchased them, it adds at best an inconvenience \u2013 since the container would have to be returned somewhere else \u2013 or an increased price \u2013 since the consumer may simply be unaware of their rights and discard the used container.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, the groups urged the governor to make modernization of the Bottle Bill a legislative priority next session. The groups cited the Bigger, Better, Bottle Bill (S.5684\/A.6543<\/a>) as their preferred approach.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Enacted in 1982, the New York State Returnable Container Act<\/a>, commonly known as \u201cthe Bottle Bill,\u201d requires a 5-cent refundable deposit to be placed on eligible beverage containers. Upon passage the Bottle Bill covered only beer and soda sold in New York. Water containers were added later. The Law<\/a> requires retailers who sell covered beverages to accept returns of empty containers for the products they sell and refund the deposits. The Law also requires beverage distributors to compensate retailers for the cost of collecting and returning empty containers by paying them a small \u201chandling fee\u201d for each redeemed bottle and can.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over its 40-year history, New York\u2019s Bottle Bill has proven to be a highly effective program to reduce litter, increase recycling rates and support a local \u201ccircular economy.\u201d The Bottle Bill reduced<\/a> roadside container litter by 70%, diverting 6.4 billion cans and bottles each year from the environment and landfills and putting them towards productive use at recycling facilities. On average, containers with a deposit are three times <\/u>more<\/em><\/u> likely<\/u><\/a> to be recycled<\/em> in America than those without.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The groups\u2019 compliance check underscored not only a specific problem, but an overall need to modernize New York\u2019s 40+ year old law. Approval of the \u201cBigger, Better, Bottle Bill\u201d would benefit state revenues, enhance recycling, save local taxpayers\u2019 money, and support struggling businesses and charities that provide critical services to the needy. Let\u2019s see if the governor acts. And if you buy soda, beer, or water containers, stand up for your rights and make sure you get your nickel back.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We all are familiar with New York\u2019s Bottle Bill. That\u2019s the law that requires a nickel deposit on some beverage containers \u2013 soda, beer, and water. It\u2019s been on the books for over 40 years. The laudable goal of the law is to divert some beverage containers from landfills and incinerators to the companies that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3273","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3273","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3273"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3273\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3274,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3273\/revisions\/3274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3273"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3273"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nypirg.org\/capitolperspective\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3273"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}