OLYMPIA — Washington ranks 15th best in recycling in the country, according to a 2023 report.
Though, at just under half, the percentage of successfully recycled materials in Washington has been roughly stagnant for years.
A bipartisan group of state legislators want to change that in 2024.
Lawmakers plan to present two different recycling bills during the upcoming legislative session in Olympia. Both bills call for “truth in labeling,” requiring manufacturers to label packaging as recyclable only if the products largely can be recycled in the state. The bills also require manufacturers to increase the amount of recycled content they use to create new packaging products.
While similar, there is one significant difference between House Bill 2049 and House Bill 1900.
The former would change who pays for curbside recycling services through what is called an “extended producer responsibility program.” Companies that supply packaging and paper products would fund the statewide program, instead of residents.
Supporters of HB 1900 believe the legislation will boost the state’s recycling success while maintaining good relationships between government and the state’s solid waste companies. Those in favor of HB 2049 say the state’s recycling model needs to be bolder if Washington’s recycling rate is to ever improve.
“The only people who haven’t had any skin in the game are the producers,” said state Rep. Liz Berry, D-Seattle, who is the primary sponsor of HB 2049.
HB 1900, she argued, doesn’t create a “system to make the polluters pay.”
Residents in 11 Washington counties don’t have curbside recycling services, Berry said. The extended producer responsibility program would expand statewide access to recycling and incentivize companies to reduce their waste.
“They have to pay into the program based on how much packaging they put into Washington,” said Heather Trim, executive director of Zero Waste Washington. “So if they reduce the amount of packaging, they pay less.”
Rep. Jake Fey, a Tacoma Democrat and the primary sponsor of HB 1900, believes state government needs to fund a needs assessment before implementing such a program. As outlined in his proposal, a needs assessment would determine the costs associated with increasing Washington’s recycling rate to 60%.
Rep. Sam Low, R-Lake Stevens, appreciates that Fey’s bill preserves local control in the recycling process.
It would ensure “we have a bill that is supported by everybody at the table, not just certain stakeholders,” Low said.
Representatives of solid waste companies are concerned about how the extended producer responsibility program in HB 2049 could affect their operations and customers, said Brad Lovaas, executive director of the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association.
“It’s a little foreign to put someone between us and the customer,” Lovaas said.
Addressing this critique, Berry referenced a study that found customers wouldn’t pay more for products if their state had an extended producer responsibility program.
Lovaas also noted HB 1900 is a more modest proposal for a short, 60-day legislative session.
Still, Lovaas emphasized there are more similarities than differences between the two bills.
Lovaas said the overlap contain “the things that we think we can get done.”
Ta’Leah Van Sistine: 425-339-3460; taleah.vansistine@heraldnet.com; Twitter: @TaLeahRoseV.
