Bottle Bill Resource Guide

2014 Connecticut Expansion Bill

Bill Number and Name	SB 67 Bill text
Sponsors	Environment Committee
Beverages Covered	Adds juice, tea, sports drinks

Track this bill

 

The 2011 Connecticut Expansion Bill

The 2011 bottle bill would expand Connecticut's existing bottle bill to cover more noncarbonated beverages.

Bill Number and Name	Senate Bill 57 Bill text
Sponsors	Sen. Edward Meyer, Sen. John McKinney
Beverages Covered	Expanded to include juice, punch, tea, and sport drinks

 

The 2011 Simplification Bill

A small adjustment to the existing system was passed by legislature in July. After a few revisions, the bill (SB 212) repealed section Section 22a-245b of the general statutes (a section that exempts dealers from accepting returns if there is a redemption center within 1 mile).

In its place, it offers an exemption to smaller distributors. Those who manufacture fewer than 250,000 containers, under 20 ounces, of noncarbonated beverages, may apply to be exempted from the entire deposit system.

The bill goes into effect immediately on passage.

Bill text

 

The 2009 Connecticut Campaign

Connecticut met with two successes in 2009: First, legislation was passed to make unclaimed deposits the property of the state; second, bottled water was added to the list of accepted beverages.

Bottled Water Expansion
Bill Number and Name	House Bill 6602 Bill text
Beverages Covered	Adds bottled water.
Containers Covered	Excluded are containers over 3L containing noncarbonated beverages, and HDPE containers.

 

The 2008 Connecticut Campaign

Expansion of the Connecticut bottle bill has been reintroduced in 2008.
The Environment Committee has raised Senate bill 357 which, among other changes, updates the existing law to include bottled water in its deposit program, and adding a 50 containers-per-day redemption limit. The Environment Committee will hold a public hearing on this proposal on March 10th.  Previous plans to hold a joint hearing with the General Law Committee, the Committee where the expansion bill was killed in the 2007 session, have been changed.

Changes to the Current Law
Bill Number and Name	Senate bill 357 Bill text (of joint favorable substitute)
Primary Sponsor	Environment Committee
Beverages Covered	Adds water and other noncarbonated beverages
Handling fee	Increases to 3¢ for non alcoholic beverages
Reclamation System	Adds a limit of 50 containers per day, requires redemption to be within 200 feet of a business' main entrance

 

The 2007 Connecticut Campaign

Despite his 2006 commitment to “Better Bottle Bill” advocates to allow an expansion bill to be heard on the House Floor, House Speaker Jim Amann once again successfully killed this measure that had been approved by two joint legislative committees (whose members include both House members and Senators), and the Senate. The bill (Senate Bill 01289) was passed overwhelmingly in the Senate, as a similar bill had been in 2005.

The Better Bottle Bill Coalition in Connecticut includes environmentalists, redemption center owners, the Teamsters Union, the CT Conference of Municipalities, and some of the state’s Resource Recovery Facilities and municipal water companies. Many were disappointed that the House Speaker refused to allow a floor vote, stalling the measure by referring it to a minor committee chaired by a state representative with a large soft drink bottling facility in his hometown. Coalition members knew there was enough support for this legislation to win passage had the Speaker allowed the vote to proceed, and apparently, the Speaker did, too.

The 2006 Connecticut Campaign

Connecticut’s efforts to expand its 26-year old bottle bill to include non-carbonated beverages were once again thwarted by the House of Representatives. Since the proposal sailed though the State Senate in the 2005 legislative session, advocates wanted the bill to be a House bill in 2006, giving it more time to be considered by House members. House Speaker Jim Amann made no secret of his reluctance to take up this contentious issue in the so-called short session. He has stated that he will not stand in the way of an expansion bill in 2007, so long as a majority of his caucus – House Democrats – is in favor of calling the bill for a vote. Advocates and supporters of expansion will have their work cut out for them this summer, as they attempt to make redemption recycling through the bottle bill a campaign issue this election cycle.

The 2005 Connecticut Campaign

After years of trying to pass a comprehensive update, in 2005 supporters tried a streamlined strategy: just add water bottles to the existing, highly successful statute. Senate President Pro Tem Don Williams proposed this simple bill, and in mid April, with seven full weeks remaining in the session, the bill to include water bottles was passed by the State Senate by an overwhelming majority. A lack of leadership in the House caused the bill to die on the calendar. House leaders were reluctant to call the bill because so many rank and file members have come to rely on campaign contributions from the bottle bill’s major opponents: beer and soda distributors, and the grocery store lobby. These opponents use the same tactics everywhere and once again dragged out the same tired arguments. One fact they simply can’t escape, however, is the incredible success of Connecticut’s bottle deposit/redemption recycling and litter reduction program.

Many towns in Connecticut have had “blue bin” recycling at the curbside since 1991, and the state has had a bottle bill for 26 years. So there are real numbers to compare the success of both systems. Redemption recycling enjoys a near 70% return rate while curbside recycling, where available, only gets under 30% in the very best of programs. Add to that the fact that redemption recycling costs no taxpayer dollars while curbside is funded completely with tax dollars. It makes no sense for any elected official to favor a government run, tax-funded system that is only half as successful as a privately funded program that costs taxpayers nothing. Obviously, the campaign contributions are the skewing factor.