It’s been nearly 30 years since Michigan voted for a deposit on beverage containers. Until 2003, few other efforts have been made to deal with trash, says Michigan Sen. Deb Cherry (D-26th district).
When Canadian landfill issues began surfacing, Michigan legislators initially considered expanding the beverage container law, requiring retailers to pay more out-of-pocket costs than they do already.
‘It’s not so much that we didn’t want to handle it anymore, we just don’t want to take any more trash into the store,? said Rick Cassabon, owner of Goodrich Marketplace.
During public hearings held this year by Michigan’s Beverage Container and Recycling Task Force, the Michigan Grocers Association reported on beverage container returns. Soda, beer, and wine cooler containers, which by law should be returned empty, are often brought into the store containing dirt, needles, gasoline, bugs, vermin, or bodily fluids, said Linda Gobler, Michigan Grocers Association president.
Although bills originally drafted would have expanded the bottle law to include milk jugs and juice bottles, a set of 13 bills aimed at other recycling measures was introduced by the Michigan Senate this week.
Among the initiatives: Creating a statewide recycling coordinator position and establishing a Recycling Advisory Council comprised of consumer, environmental, and business groups.
Legislation would also allow for a statewide litter study and campaign, and establish a cash-incentive litter-reporting hotline program.
Landfill measures are also being considered, including placing a two-year moratorium on new landfills, imposing a $3 surchage per ton on landfill waste, and using the funds for counties to run new and existing recycling and waste reduction programs.
Michigan’s recycling rate?20 percent? ranks as one of the lowest in the nation, says Sen. Jud Gilbert (R-25th district), a bill sponsor.
A landfill moratorium could be effective ‘as kind of a pause,? says Martin Seaman, Oakland County Solid Waste Manager, providing long-term planning doesn’t stop.
Cherry questions the $3 surcharge.
‘I have concerns about the surcharge because of all the local budget cuts,? she said.
Seaman opposes the surcharge for other reasons. With ‘very successful? recycling programs already in place in parts of Oakland County, he feels the measure would unfairly punish municipalities that have funded recycling programs, instead rewarding areas who have put money into incinerators instead of ‘environmentally better and cheaper? composting and recycling programs.
Although incinerators’like those in Grand Rapids and Detroit’are cleaner than five to 10 years ago, ‘why give them a free pass?? said Seaman, who estimates Oakland County would be charged an additional $6 million in landfill fees, recouping as little as $4 million.
While the measure may be aimed at gleaning funds from Canadian and out-of-state waste shipments, Seaman asserts if trash shipments didn’t continue to Michigan, the surcharge could backfire.’We would still be taxing ourselves,? he said.
Landfill fees are one of the biggest costs for waste haulers, said Matt McKay, president of Waste Away Disposal in Ortonville.
McKay estimates implementing environmental measures such as curbside recycling could cost as little as an additional $2 per household. Although Waste Away picks up recyclables at no additional charge, only one out of eight households takes advantage of the program.
Recycling is a moot point unless businesses are mandated to use recyclables, added McKay. Unless recycled into usable materials, waste haulers aren’t paid for loads of paper, cardboard and other materials.
A September, 2003 report issued by the Department of Environmental Quality on Michigan landfill waste concurs, noting loads containing more than 50 percent of recyclables, such as Illinois? ground plastic and Wisconsin’s beverage containers.
According to the report, ‘These observations support the DEQ view that viable markets for recyclable materials must be established in order for Michigan’s recycling efforts to succeed and improve.?
A southeast Michigan inspector mentioned in the report estimated an average Michigan load of household waste contained between 10 to 20 percent cardboard, five to 15 percent paper, approximately five percent of metal, and less than five percent recyclable plastic, by volume.
A separate bill would prohibit landfill operators from permitting certain items, such as yard clippings or beverage containers.
Although every retailer is required to take back returnable containers they sell, some make it less user friendly than others, says Cassabon, who estimates Goodrich Marketplace gets back three times as many beverage containers as it sells.
Local grocers pay out-of-pocket for manpower, Cassabon said. They also lease and maintain several $15,000 beverage return machines. While 25 percent of the unclaimed bottle fund is allocated to offset retailers? costs, the amount is so limited most have given up on applying, says Gobler.
‘It’s not a money-making venture at all,? said Chris Bueche, co-owner of Bueche Food World in Ortonville. ‘Some people are under that impression because of all the dimes that change hands.?
Bueche favors the recycling bill package over the original reaction to mounting trash issues, described as ‘let’s-put-’em-back-through-the-grocery-stores,? said Bueche, who says the beverage industry has grown greatly since the bottle bill of the 1970s.
‘I don’t think that makes sense in 2003,? he said.