A potential expansion of the state’s bottle deposit law is being debated in the Michigan Legislature that could add additional items such as single-use water bottles. Photo by Jon King.
Last week, members of the Michigan Senate Energy and Environment Committee voted to move a potential expansion of the state’s bottle deposit law back to the Senate floor following testimony from retailers, wholesalers, representatives of the beverage industry and environmental advocates.
The proposal, introduced by state Sen. Sean McCann (D-Kalamazoo), would place the issue of expanding the bottle bill on the 2026 ballot, with voters ultimately deciding whether to approve provisions like universal redemption — allowing containers to be returned to any dealer who sells containers subject to the 10-cent deposit — as well as expanding the bill to cover all beverages containers one gallon or less.
“It’s important to stress to you that nothing whatsoever would happen to the current bottle law unless voters approve the proposal in 2026,” McCann noted while testifying on the bills.
The proposal is the latest of many efforts aiming to expand the bottle bill to cover more containers, with McCann reintroducing a previous proposal in 2023 alongside Rep. Christine Morse (D-Texas Twp.).
In crafting the latest proposal, McCann likened the effort of finding general agreement among stakeholders to “the games of Whack a Mole combined with Jenga.”
“Depending on how you move the pieces around and which pieces are included or not in the money puzzle will absolutely affect which stakeholders tell you they are supportive and which are not. I’ve worked at this for many months, seeking the best arrangement, and what is before you today is my current best effort. It’s draft eight, [substitute] two, but even today, I am still absolutely willing to consider adjusting it further if it can be made better for all,” McCann noted.
He also warned against letting the perfect be the enemy of good, noting some stakeholders remained opposed to the concept of a bottle bill in general.
“The current bottle law is not on trial today, and sometimes the greater interests of the people of Michigan must override more narrow interests. This is how the original bottle law came to be,” McCann said, referencing the original law, which was initiated by voters in 1976.
The Michigan Retailers Association was the first to speak in opposition to the proposal, with Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Amy Drumm noting the group is strongly opposed to any effort to expand the current “costly, failing and inefficient deposit system.”
On Dec. 5, 2024, Michigan Retailers Association Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Amy Drumm testifies on a proposed ballot initiative to expand Michigan’s bottle deposit law. | Screenshot
“Retailers only exist if they have customers, and any negative impact to the customer experience is extremely concerning to the industry,” Drumm said.
Shane Smith, the vice president of operations at Ric’s Food Center — which has locations in Mount Pleasant, Ithaca and Rockford — described the grocery industry as reluctant partners when the bottle bill was first instituted in 1976. “Perhaps the law made sense in 1976 when words like recycling were not in our vocabulary. Things have changed in the last 50 years, recycling centers are in every county with collection bins in neighborhoods and in people’s front yards. The thought of expanding this outdated law is absurd when many other options are currently in place,” Smith said.
Additionally, Smith said one of the largest challenges grocery stores face is maintaining a clean, sanitary environment, arguing that a new variety of incoming returns would burden their facilities.
“I’m not sure how we will handle the variety of incoming returns, but it’s safe to say that we will have to add on to our facility where possible, or perhaps remove part of our sales area for storage, creating a negative impact on our sales,” Smith said.
Labor is another concern, Smith said, noting that Ric’s Food Center currently spends 200 hours a week processing empties across its location, warning that an expansion of the law would double or triple that time, potentially negatively impacting prices as they work to recover the costs from those additional labor hours.
Also in opposition was the Michigan Environmental Council, who argued against a proposal which puts money from unclaimed deposits toward reimbursing industry stakeholders, with the first $1 million in unclaimed deposits currently funding enforcement of the bottle bill alongside with 75% of the following collections going toward environmental cleanups and pollution prevention efforts.
Under the newest version, 40% of those unredeemed deposits would be put toward environmental cleanup and redevelopment, while 5% would go to manufacturers, 20% to distributors and 25% to dealers and redemption centers and 10% would go to a new fund supporting affordability and access to water.
“We are not opposed to dealers and distributors receiving reimbursement. However, providing these reimbursements through unclaimed deposits creates a perverse incentive for the program to work less effectively, meaning the more unreturned cans there are leads to more unclaimed deposit money that these stakeholders get to pocket without guarantees that this money would be used to improve the bottle bill system,” said Trent Wolf, the council’s the strategic campaigns manager.
On Dec. 5, 2024, Trent Wolf, strategic campaigns manager for the Michigan Environmental Council testifies on a proposed ballot initiative to expand Michigan’s bottle deposit law. | Screenshot
While the council is supportive of an expanded bottle bill, Wolf said work grouping with all of the bill’s stakeholders is necessary to get the proposal right.
The committee also heard opposing testimony from the Michigan Beverage Association, with President and CEO Derek Bajema arguing the ballot initiative would raise costs on groceries and recycling.
Additionally, Michigan producers and distributors of soft drinks lose more than $10 million a year due to full pallets of beverages imported from non-deposit states, Bajema said.
“This isn’t the Seinfeld cute thing of the empties coming in, this is pallets of full beverages. They don’t pay the deposits in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, they drive the truckloads back to Michigan and charge 10 cents on each container…but it’s pure profit because a deposit was never initiated,” Bajema said.
“This legislation would vastly improve the opportunities for deposit fraud by making it even more profitable for racketeers already making $2.40 on each case of pop that they bring in from Toledo and resell in Michigan to now be able to purchase a 40 pack of water for $4 in Ohio, and bring it in to Michigan and sell it for $3 dollars, charge the consumer a fake $4 deposit on those 40 water bottles, so that when the Michigan Teamster employee shows up with a 40 pack that now costs $8 with a deposit, there’s no sale to be made,” Bajema said.
However, the bills did receive support from the Michigan Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association, with President Spencer Nevins noting the association’s long history of supporting the bottle bill.
“The state has abandoned its responsibility under the bottle bill. They haven’t funded infrastructure and we have long said that we support the bottle bill and we will support expansion as long as infrastructure is addressed. And these bills do that,” Nevins said.
Nevins noted that consumer engagement with the bottle bill has dropped off significantly, with the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy showing refund rates dropped from 94.7% in 2012 to 75.6% in 2022. Nevins attributed this drop off to disregarding the return infrastructure and failing to ensure compliance with the law.
However, you can’t build this infrastructure without providing money to the industry, Nevins said.
While the bill does not cover the cost of everything, the association supports the policy because it would mark the first proposal concerned with the infrastructure and the benefit of all stakeholders, Nevins said.
The bills were reported back to the Senate floor on a party line vote of 9 to 5.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX