State lawmakers launch Better Bottle Bill campaign in Massachusetts

Massachusetts state Rep. Marjorie Decker, Sen. Cynthia Creem and other local lawmakers recently launched a campaign to modernize the state’s container deposit law. The goal is to expand what bottles can be deposited under the existing bottle bill, which was first introduced in 1982.

After nearly 40 years, some lawmakers think the state’s bottle bill needs to be updated to more efficiently reduce waste, litter and costs for disposal and cleanup in the commonwealth. 

Dubbed the Better Bottle Bill campaign, Decker and Creem want to expand the state’s bottle deposit program to include water bottles as well as bottles for juices, sports drinks and iced teas. The lawmakers also are proposing to increase bottle deposits from 5 cents to 10 cents, says Janet Domenitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG), a waste advocacy group that helped write the new bill.

“When the first iteration of this bill was passed in the 1982, it didn’t account for things like bottled water,” Domenitz says. “We wanted to include all of the new types of packaging, so the community is encouraged to recycle more through this method.”

She says the proposed bill will increase recycling through the bottle bill program by increasing what residents can deposit.

“It is the right time. There is no reason not to do this,” says Creem. “By expanding the container deposit system to include all these containers, we bring the Bottle Bill into the 21st century.” 

Environmental and civic organizations like Environment, League of Women Voters, Conservation Law Foundation and Sierra Club support the bill as well as 55 other state and local organizations, according to a news release from MASSPIRG.

However, some material recovery facility (MRF) operators in the state, such as E.L. Harvey & Sons, which operates a MRF in Westborough, Massachusetts, have expressed opposition to the proposed bottle bill program expansion. Ben Harvey, president of E.L. Harvey, says he believes that the bill will negatively impact operators in the state by affecting their established recycling streams.

“We as an industry are opposed to the expansion of the bottle bill,” Harvey says. “It could potentially take away a commodity stream like polyethylene terephthalate or aluminum beverage cans for our industry. It would make an indent in our revenue streams.”

Harvey also says that the expansion is not enough of an incentive for residents to go out and recycle.

“It’s an antiquated system. I feel that people don’t want to take their bottles back anymore,” Harvey says. “There are so many good recycling programs throughout the country, it doesn’t make sense for people to use two different baskets to recycle. Especially now, people are getting everything delivered to them, why would they want to go out and return their bottles when they could do something more convenient? It’s not a commonsense thing to do.”