Q&As

Beverage Container Deposits

What are forced deposits?

Commonly known as bottle bills, while exact requirements vary by state, all forced deposit programs share common elements. They all: impose a mandatory, pre-paid fee on certain beverage containers; require consumers to return containers to designated locations to reclaim the fee; require retailers or redemption centers to take back returned containers and require significant new infrastructure (equipment, staff, and facilities) to manage beverage containers separately from other products and packaging.

What states have forced deposits?

Oregon passed the first bottle bill in 1971, followed by Vermont, Michigan, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts and New York. California ’s unique system has been in place since 1986. Finally, Hawaii passed a deposit law that took effect in 2005. The city of Columbia, Missouri, passed the only municipal deposit in 1977; voters there repealed it in April 2002. All of these states have ongoing debates about the merits of their deposit programs, with some arguing for maintaining or expanding programs while others are pressing for elimination or reform.

What are the cost implications of forced deposits?

Operating costs of deposit programs are at least four times the cost of comprehensive recycling. And newer programs such as those in California and Hawaii have high state costs as well. California’s bureaucracy has hundreds of employees working on the bottle bill, costing over $30 million per year just for oversight. Deposit programs raise costs for businesses, which means higher prices for consumers. The biggest impact of those higher prices falls on low-income consumers.

Are forced deposits ineffective?

No. The biggest problem is that deposits focus on such a small part of the solid waste or litter problems. Relying on deposits to solve these broad and complex problems is overly simplistic and just won’t work. Furthermore, deposit laws effectively require that a whole new system be established to collect and manage beverage container materials – something that existing recycling infrastructure has already in place. Requiring the establishment of duplicative, new systems is bad public policy.

Do consumers like deposits?

Many consumers in deposit states say they like the deposit program, yet are very critical of the inconvenience, hassle, cost and mess at the stores or redemption centers. Consumers’ attitudes are reflected in their actions – redemption rates in deposit states are dropping. In California, the biggest deposit state, only about half of all deposit containers are returned for a refund – even despite a 60 percent jump in the refund value that took effect in 2004. If you ask consumers if they would prefer adding to their existing deposit program or replacing it with a better curbside program, most support replacement.