By Zach Weigel
Americans like their water, and they like to be able to conveniently drink it. Therefore, it should come as little surprise the 2016 data from Beverage Marketing Corp. shows Americans now drink more bottled water per year than soda.
While this is likely a positive sign for the health-care industry, which has for years advocated reduced consumption of sugary beverages, water’s ascent to the premier beverage Americans consume also comes at a time when many question the rationale for buying a bottle of water. After all, water from the faucet or drinking fountain is often free (relatively), meaning a reusable water bottle can suffice in lieu of the need to purchase a bottle of water.
But in all practicality, intuition suggests we as Americans drink bottled water primarily due to its convenience, setting aside the external considerations of cost and environmental impact. So it’s logical to presume that Americans will continue to favor bottled water over soda in the future.
Given that bottled water is the most prevalent beverage in the average American’s diet, it seems wise to expand the 5-cent tax that exists on soda-pop cans, alcohol containers, and other miscellaneous beverages to include bottled water as well. Therefore,w I struggle to reason with why the state Legislature is exploring a bill to get rid of this very program all together.
Since 1978, Iowa has had a beverage-container program in which a 5-cent deposit is added to all redeemable containers. Designed to reduce litter, the program incentivizes recycling these redeemable containers by refunding individuals the 5-cent deposit if they bring the container to a redemption center. However, House Study Bill 163 would scrap this program, instead forcing wholesalers to fund recycling and litter control programs.
While the bill is still under consideration and subject to amendment, at its current strength, the bill would take the fees paid by wholesalers to directly fund recycling and litter control programs rather than the current arrangement of indirectly refunding the deposit once a container is redeemed.
One question looms large in my mind: why get rid of the highly successful can/bottle redemption program? Proponents claim that the proliferation of recycling services no longer makes it necessary to incentivize recycling. Now, maybe I’m just cynical, but it seems a little idealistic to believe that people will continue to recycle cans and bottles if they no longer have an incentive to do so.
The Iowa Department of Natural Resourcs estimates that roughly 86 percent of redeemable containers get recycled. Would that number still be as high if the deposit-refund program were abolished? Moreover, returning to my point about bottled water, rather than scrapping the highly successful program that currently exists, wouldn’t it be wiser to expand the program to include water bottles as well?
In 1978, the professed goal behind the original program was to discourage littering and encourage recycling. That goal seems to largely have been accomplished; the vast majority of redeemable beverage containers are recycled, according to Natural Resources.
So, please, state Legislature, give me a better reason for axing a successful program at a time when it would actually make more sense to expand the program, because I can’t believe that people will recycle on a comparable level if they no longer have an incentive.