New York's Returnable Beverage Container Law, a.k.a. the "Bottle Bill," was enacted in 1982 and went into effect September 12, 1983. G. Oliver Koppell, now a New York City Council member, was the lead sponsor in the State Assembly.

New York was the ninth state to require mandatory deposits for beverage containers of at least 5-cents per container. The law first covered carbonated soda, beer, and ale; it was later expanded to include wine coolers. The purpose of the Bottle Bill is not to create a new tax, but rather to create economic incentives for the collection and return of these containers. This in turn was expected to reduce litter, ease the burden on New York’s solid waste facilities, and encourage recycling activities.

By all accounts, the Bottle Bill has been tremendously successful in each of these goals, and has created new jobs in the process. The Bottle Bill has resulted in at least a 70% reduction in litter. Reductions in litter have provided safer, more attractive streets and public areas, while reducing sanitation costs for street cleaning, park maintenance, etc. The returned containers are relatively uncontaminated, and therefore the majority returned are recycled rather than disposed of. It has achieved this goal without added burdens to New York's municipalities.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said he will seek to replace the Bottle Bill deposit system with a five-cent tax on containers. This proposal, which would require action by the State Legislature, ignores the success of the Bottle Bill redemption program and how it continues to benefit New York City:

• According to estimates by consultants for the NYC DOS, over 4.8 billion beverage containers were projected for redemption in New York City in the year 2000. This has spurred recycling and significantly reduced the litter and broken glass in city parks and streets, at no cost to the City;
• Bottlers in NYC alone account for 78,000 tons of containers per year never being handled by the Department of Sanitation, saving the City a minimum of $4,212,000 in export costs (based upon $54/ton export costs of least expensive interim export contract). In addition to the cost savings, there are also environmental justice benefits. These 78,000 tons never pass through the low-income communities of color where waste transfer stations currently exist in NYC. This results in roughly 3,900 fewer long-haul truck trips (based upon avg. long-haul trucks carrying 20 tons) through these neighborhoods, and fewer diesel trucks means cleaner air and better health for those otherwise most disparately impacted by existing siting and waste handling practices in the City;
• As an unanticipated side benefit, the Bottle Bill has provided income and employment to scores of bottle redeemers in New York City, many of whom are homeless or low-income.

If the Mayor is looking for money from the Bottle Bill, he need only look as far as the unclaimed nickel deposits. Currently, unredeemed deposits remain in the possession of the bottlers or distributors who originated the deposit. These interests have vigorously opposed previous efforts by the state to tap into this potential source of funding for recycling and other environmental programs. As can be seen in the chart below, the stakes are high. According to a report prepared for the DOS in the spring of 2000, there were more than $107 million in unclaimed deposits in New York City alone in the year 2000.

This money should be recaptured to fund government programs for recycling and waste prevention, since any unredeemed containers must be collected and redeemed through municipal waste management programs. Two of the states with bottle bills - Massachusetts and Michigan - have mechanisms for recapturing these unclaimed deposits.

The State Legislature should expand the Bottle Bill to include noncarbonated beverage containers, such as water, sports drinks, juice, and iced tea, which were not envisioned when the law was passed twenty years ago. These now comprise a significant portion of our beverage consumption. In New York City alone, the increased captured volume under an expanded Bottle Bill would account for 154,300 tons per year of containers, a net of 7,715 diesel trucks not going through overburdened communities (based upon avg. long-haul trucks carrying 20 tons). This translates to savings in export costs to the City of more than $8,332,200 compared to ending the Bottle Bill as proposed by Mayor Bloomberg (based upon $54/ton export costs of least expensive interim export contract).

In addition, the Legislature should require that unclaimed nickel deposits be returned to the government to fund recycling and other needed environmental programs. According to the most recent DOS figures, in 2000 there were over $107 million in unclaimed deposits originating in New York City alone. This figure would have been even larger under an expanded Bottle Bill. This money would go a long way toward funding and improving New York’s recycling, composting and waste prevention programs. Both Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council should jump on the opportunity to support these measures.