Rep. Liz Berry, D-Seattle, shows the different types of containers that her family’s fruit came in this week. Berry, along with Sen. Liz Lovelett, D-Anacortes, and Dylan de Thomas, at the Recycling Partnership, spoke to reporters about a new bill to require manufacturers to pay for recycling. (Photo by Laurel Demkovich/Washington State Standard)
The way Washington residents recycle is up for debate in the state Legislature as lawmakers look for ways to keep more waste out of landfills.
Bills to study the state’s system, implement a new producer-paid statewide recycling model and create a bottle dropoff program are making their way through the legislative process right now with staunch supporters and harsh critics of each.
Most lawmakers and advocates agree that something needs to change to increase recycling in Washington, but what exactly that could look like remains unclear.
Though still higher than many other states, Washington’s recycling rate has hovered around 50% for years.
Dylan de Thomas, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the Recycling Partnership, said that stagnation is because of an inconsistent system and confusing packaging.
Meanwhile, slumping demand for recycled glass in the region means glass recycling has gone away in some parts of the state. And China’s decision about seven years ago to stop accepting solid waste imports caused another layer of difficulties.
“The reason our recycling rate is flat is a system problem that requires a system solution,” he said
Producer responsibility
A proposal to require companies to reduce unnecessary packaging and fund statewide recycling services through what’s known as an extended producer responsibility program is back this year.
It would require manufacturers, brands and importers to join a statewide “producer responsibility organzation” and pay fees to cover the cost of a new statewide system. By March 2029, producers who are not members of the organization could not sell their products in Washington.
The Department of Ecology would develop a list of recyclable materials in Washington and work to educate the public so everyone knows exactly what they can recycle.
Supporters say the goal is to give more people the opportunity to recycle more types of products. Currently, what can be recycled differs by city, and 11 counties have no services at all. Under this proposal, everyone would use the same system.
Extended producer responsibility programs exist already in Canada and Europe. More states are starting to implement them as well, including Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado and Minnesota.
“We already know EPR works,” de Thomas said. “If we don’t do this, it’s the status quo, and the status quo has gotten us to where we are.”
House Bill 1150 is scheduled for a vote out of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, and Senate Bill 5284 is scheduled for a vote out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Thursday.
Opponents of the bill say that a producer responsibility system may not be the best approach.
Chris Reigelsperger, manager of government relations at WM, said it’s too early to tell if this system is working in other states that are still in the process of implementing it. Washington should study the system before it commits to it, he added.
“This bill provides us with more questions than answers,” said Rick Vahl, government affairs manager at Waste Connections.
Vahl and Reigelsperger support a different proposal that would focus first on a needs assessment of the state’s current recycling system before committing to an overhaul like the producer responsibility model.
He said the bill they support this session, House Bill 1071, has “more concrete, incremental steps with the understanding that we should be proud of the strong, foundational programs we have in place in Washington and the results we’re getting.”
Studying the system
The other major recycling bill this session, House Bill 1071 has some similar provisions to the other bills, but it does not go as far to set up the new producer responsibility program.
It would require the state to do a needs assessment for Washington’s recycling system. It would also require the Department of Ecology to create a public list of recyclable materials and set a standard for how much recyclable material can be in certain products.
But de Thomas said this needs assessment bill is “a baby step that isn’t necessary” and pointed out that the extended producer responsibility bill calls for a needs assessment, too.
House Bill 1071 received a hearing in the House Appropriations Committee on Saturday and is not currently scheduled for a vote.
Bottle bill
A third major recycling proposal this session would allow residents to receive 10 cents if they recycle their beverage containers, like glass bottles or cans with one gallon or less.
The so-called “bottle bill” would add a 10-cent deposit to the sale of beverage containers in Washington. Once a customer returns that container to a grocery store or a dropoff site, they would get the 10 cents back. A similar system exists in Oregon and California.
Scott DeFife, president of the Glass Packaging Institute, said the proposal is “not your grandmother’s bottle bill.”
He said it would allow for multiple places, including grocery stores and local governments, to take back bottles and create more recycling options in rural and suburban areas.
In Oregon, an app helps people track where they can deposit bottles and keep all of their refunds in one place, de Thomas said.
“It’s a new, modern take on a deposit return system,” DeFife said.
But opponents of the bill say that it’s an outdated policy that will require more work on the consumer’s part than the current curbside program. Vahl said it targets a piece of the recycling system that Washington already does quite well.
“The bottle bill runs a parallel program that duplicates what already exists,” Vahl said.
House Bill 1607 received a public hearing on Monday, and Senate Bill 5502 is scheduled for a vote out of the Senate Ways and Means Committee on Thursday.