Each week prior to the November election The Somerville Times will present the Statewide ballot questions, along with pro and con arguments, one at a time for examination and further consideration. We continue the series this week with Question 2: Expanding the Beverage Container Deposit Law.

QUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition

Expanding the Beverage Container Deposit Law

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?

SUMMARY

This proposed law would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law, also known as the Bottle Bill, to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic non-carbonated drinks in liquid form intended for human consumption, except beverages primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, and FDA approved medicines. The proposed law would not cover containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-material packages such as juice boxes or pouches.

The proposed law would require the state Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to adjust the container deposit amount every five years to reflect (to the nearest whole cent) changes in the consumer price index, but the value could not be set below five cents.

The proposed law would increase the minimum handling fee that beverage distributors must pay dealers for each properly returned empty beverage container, which was 2¼ cents as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. It would also increase the minimum handling fee that bottlers must pay distributors and dealers for each properly returned empty reusable beverage container, which was 1 cent as of September 2013, to 3½ cents. The Secretary of EEA would review the fee amounts every five years and make appropriate adjustments to reflect changes in the consumer price index as well as changes in the costs incurred by redemption centers. The proposed law defines a redemption center as any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of beverage containers and that is not ancillary to any other business.

The proposed law would direct the Secretary of EEA to issue regulations allowing small dealers to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. The proposed law would define small dealer as any person or business, including the operator of a vending machine, who sells beverages in beverage containers to consumers, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less, excluding office and stock room space; and fewer than four locations under the same ownership in the Commonwealth. The proposed law would require that the regulations consider at least the health, safety, and convenience of the public, including the distribution of dealers and redemption centers by population or by distance or both.

The proposed law would set up a state Clean Environment Fund to receive certain unclaimed container deposits. The Fund would be used, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature, to support programs such as the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection.

The proposed law would allow a dealer, distributor, redemption center or bottler to refuse to accept any beverage container that is not marked as being refundable in Massachusetts.

The proposed law would take effect on April 22, 2015.

A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.

ARGUMENTS

As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: A YES vote will improve the “Bottle Bill,” where consumers put down a refundable nickel deposit on a beer or soda. People get the nickel back when they return the container. A YES vote will extend this program to cover other beverages such as bottled water.

The Bottle Bill works: 80% of beer and soda containers get recycled. Only 23% of non-deposit containers do. So every year a billion bottles get tossed away, often on playgrounds, roads and beaches. Communities have to pay to clean them up.

A YES vote equals more recycling, less trash and litter, and big savings for towns’ waste management costs. That’s why this idea has been endorsed by 209 of our cities and towns, as well as Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick, former Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, 350 business leaders, and independent groups like the League of Women Voters, MASSPIRG, Sierra Club and hundreds more.

Authored by:
Coalition for an Updated Bottle Bill
294 Washington Street, Suite 5001
Boston, MA 02108
617-747-4322
www.massbottlebill.org

AGAINST: Massachusetts should be a recycling leader, but Question 2 will keep us in the past. Ninety percent of households now have access to curbside and community recycling programs. Let’s focus on what works instead of expanding an outdated, ineffective, and inconvenient system.

Everyone wants to increase recycling rates—but expanded forced deposits are the wrong approach.

Question 2 would:

• cost nearly $60 million a year, more than three times the price of curbside programs (while increasing recycling rates by less than 1 percent);
• waste taxpayer dollars on expanding an uneconomical, 30-year-old system;
• raise your nickel deposit and additional fees every five years—without your vote.

Today, more than $30 million of your unclaimed nickels go into the state’s general fund and into the hands of politicians – not to environmental programs. Let’s stop throwing money at an inefficient system and invest in modern recycling technology.

Vote NO on Question 2.

Authored by:
Robert L. Moylan
Comprehensive Recycling Works
31 Milk Street, Suite 518
Boston, MA 02109
617-886-5186
www.NoOnQuestion2.com

FULL TEXT OF QUESTION:

Be it enacted by the People, and by their authority:

SECTION 1. Section 321 of chapter 94 of the General Laws is hereby amended by deleting the definition of “Beverage” and replacing it with the following definition:-

“Beverage”, soda water or similar carbonated soft drinks, noncarbonated non-alcoholic beverages in liquid form intended for human consumption, mineral water, beer, and other malt beverages. This definition excludes beverages that are primarily derived from dairy products, infant formula, united states food and drug administration-approved medicines, wine, and alcoholic beverages other than beer and malt beverages as defined in chapter one hundred and thirty-eight.

SECTION 2. Paragraph 3 of said section 321 of said chapter 94 is hereby amended by striking out the last sentence and inserting in place thereof the following sentence:-

This definition shall not include containers made of paper-based biodegradable material and aseptic multi-layer packaging.

SECTION 3. Said section 321 of said chapter 94 is hereby further amended by inserting after the definition of “Plastic bottle” the following definition:-

“Redemption center”, any business whose primary purpose is the redemption of beverage containers and which is not ancillary to any other business.

SECTION 4. Said section 321 of said chapter 94 is hereby further amended by inserting after the definition of “Reusable beverage container” the following definition:-

“Small dealer”, any person or business, including any operator of a vending machine, who engages in the sale of beverages in beverage containers to consumers in the commonwealth, with a contiguous retail space of 3,000 square feet or less, exclusive of office and stock room space; and fewer than four (4) locations under the same ownership within the Commonwealth.

SECTION 5. Section 322 of said chapter 94 is hereby amended by inserting after said section the following section:-

Section 322A: The secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs shall review the refund value as referenced in section 322 every five (5) years and adjust said amount to the nearest whole cent to reflect the consumer price index as reported by the united states department of labor, but in no case shall the refund value be less than five (5) cents.

SECTION 6. Paragraph (c) of said section 323 of said chapter 94 of the General Laws is hereby amended by striking out the words “one cent” and inserting in place thereof the words “three and one half cents” and by adding the following sentence:-

The handling fee shall be reviewed every five (5) years by the secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs and adjustments made to reflect the consumer price index as reported by the united states department of labor, or equivalent index selected by the secretary if the consumer price index is discontinued, as well as industry-specific increases or decreases in costs incurred by redemption centers.

SECTION 7. Paragraph (d) of said section 323 of said chapter 94 is hereby amended by striking out the words “one cent” and inserting in place thereof the words “three and one half cents” and by adding the following sentence:-

The handling fee shall be reviewed every five (5) years by the secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs and adjustments made to reflect the consumer price index as reported by the united states department of labor, or equivalent index selected by the secretary if the consumer price index is discontinued, as well as industry-specific increases or decreases in costs incurred by redemption centers.

SECTION 8. Paragraph (f) of said section 323 of said chapter 94 is hereby amended by changing the period at the end of the current paragraph into a comma, and adding the words “or for which there is no Massachusetts refund legend on the beverage container.”

SECTION 9. Said chapter 94 is hereby further amended by inserting after section 323E the following section:-

Section 323F. (a) There shall be established on the books of the commonwealth a separate fund to be known as the clean environment fund. All abandoned deposits collected pursuant to chapter 94, section 323D shall be deposited into the clean environment fund. Amounts deposited in said fund shall be used, subject to appropriation, for programs including but not limited to projects supporting the proper management of solid waste, water resource protection, parkland, urban forestry, air quality and climate protection.

SECTION 10. Paragraph (b) of said section 323 of said chapter 94 is hereby amended by inserting the following words after the current paragraph:- Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the secretary of the executive office of energy and environmental affairs shall, on or before June 22, 2015, promulgate regulations providing small dealers with the right to seek exemptions from accepting empty deposit containers. Said regulations shall consider at least the health and safety of the public, and the convenience for the public, including distribution of dealers and redemption centers by population or by distance or both.

SECTION 11. This act shall take effect on April 22, 2015.