Lori Van Buren / Times Union.
Lori Van Buren/Times Union
For decades, the Bottle Bill has been one of New York’s most successful environmental policies. It has reduced litter, boosted recycling and created a network of small businesses that made redemption accessible to millions of New Yorkers.
Today, that system is breaking down.
Article continues below this ad
Redemption centers are closing. Municipal recycling costs are rising. Landfills are nearing capacity. Fraud is increasing. And more consumers are simply throwing containers away — effectively turning their 5-cent deposit into a tax.
These problems may seem unrelated. They are not. They all trace back to one decision: the 2009 shift in how unredeemed deposit funds are allocated, followed by 17 years of legislative neglect.
The Bottle Bill works through a simple chain: A 5-cent deposit is paid when a beverage is purchased and returned when the container is redeemed. Redemption centers and retailers handle the returns and receive a small handling fee — currently 3.5 cents per container.
Make the Times Union a Preferred Source on Google to see more of our journalism when you search.
Add Preferred Source
Before 2009, unredeemed deposits stayed within this system, helping support its costs. But that changed when 80% of those funds were redirected to New York state. While some of that money supports environmental programs, tens of millions of dollars each year now flow into the state’s general fund — money that no longer supports the infrastructure that makes redemption possible.
Article continues below this ad
The result is predictable: A system expected to operate in a 2026 economy, but using 2009 funding, is collapsing.
Redemption centers are the backbone of the Bottle Bill. They process high volumes that retailers simply cannot handle. Yet they have been forced to operate under a stagnant fee structure for nearly two decades.
The consequences are already visible. More than 200 redemption centers have closed in the past two and a half years. Entire regions are becoming “redemption deserts,” where consumers have few fast and convenient options to return containers, or none at all.
When redemption becomes inconvenient, people stop doing it. Containers go in the trash. Deposits go unclaimed.
Article continues below this ad
The fix is straightforward: Raise the handling fee to reflect today’s costs, tie it to cost-of-living, and return a greater share of unredeemed funds to the system that depends on them.
What’s more, the beverage industry has changed dramatically since 2009. Store shelves are filled with products that didn’t exist when the law was last updated — hard ciders, canned cocktails and more. Many of these containers are not covered under the current law.
More than 2.5 billion containers each year fall outside the deposit system. These containers are far more likely to end up in landfills. Municipalities, in turn, are raising taxes and fees to manage the growing waste stream.
Expanding the Bottle Bill to include these beverages — including wine and liquor containers — would dramatically increase recycling rates and reduce the burden on local governments.
Article continues below this ad
Wine and liquor stores have raised valid concerns about being required to accept returns. Space is limited, labor is costly and redemption operations can be disruptive. A practical solution is to include these containers in the Bottle Bill while allowing retailers to partner with nearby redemption centers instead of handling returns themselves.
Fraud is often cited as a reason to resist expanding or improving the Bottle Bill. But most fraud is not happening at the consumer level; it stems from gaps in the system itself.
Cross-border redemption, inconsistent labeling and the use of pre-stamped cans by non-participating producers all contribute to financial losses and confusion.
Some have suggested mandating expensive barcode scanning machines to address the problem. But these systems cost tens of thousands of dollars, and for many small redemption centers they are simply not feasible.
Article continues below this ad
There is a better solution: Require clear, New York-specific markings — such as a color-coded mark near the barcode — on all redeemable containers. This low-cost change would make verification easy, greatly reduce fraud and eliminate confusion without forcing small businesses out of operation.
The Bottle Bill is not failing because it doesn’t work. It is failing because it has been allowed to fall behind. The path forward is clear: Restore a fair balance of unredeemed funds; increase and modernize the handling fee; expand the range of covered containers; implement simple, effective fraud prevention measures; and allow flexibility for retailers through partnerships.
New York already has the framework for one of the most effective recycling systems in the country. What it lacks is the political will to maintain it.
Article continues below this ad
Stacy A. Bradt is the owner and operator of Duanesburg Redemption Bottle & Can Return in Schenectady County.