DC Bottle Bill Roundtable: Recycling Refund & Litter Reduction Act, July 9, 2026
DC Bottle Bill Roundtable: Recycling Refund & Litter Reduction Act, July 9, 2026
The Committee on Transportation and the Environment, chaired by Councilmember Charles Allen, held a public roundtable on July 9, 2026, to receive feedback on a revised draft of Bill 26-58, the Recycling, Refund, and Litter Reduction Amendment Act (the "bottle bill"). The meeting featured testimony from environmental advocates, local brewers and distillers, beverage wholesalers, retailers, and subject matter experts. No votes were taken; the hearing was for informational and deliberative purposes.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Christy Petchi (Just Zero) expressed full support for the bill, calling it "excellent and thoughtful." She emphasized that a 10-cent deposit is the right starting point and urged retention of the automatic deposit increase mechanism (stricken in the revised draft) to avoid the stagnation seen in Massachusetts and New York.
- Ginny Farrell (New York State Assembly) supported the bill, noting that New York's 5-cent deposit yields ~70% redemption, but 10-cent states achieve over 90%. She highlighted that deposit systems produce higher-quality recyclables than single-stream recycling.
- Brendan Williams Keith (DC Association of Beverage Alcohol Wholesalers) strongly opposed the bill, citing a cost study estimating $57.6 million in startup costs and $38 million in annual operating costs. He argued the program would impose disproportionate burdens on local distributors and expose the district to fraud and solvency risks.
- Mary Donovan (Elevated Insights Group) presented her cost study (funded by the DC beverage wholesalers), estimating $57M startup and $38M annual costs, with fraud risks of 10-50% leading to losses of $5.7M to $28.5M. She noted the study did not include savings from litter reduction.
- Jordan Cotton (Cotton & Reed Distillery) supported the bill's goals but expressed concerns about compliance burdens on small producers. He requested exemption from stewardship organization membership fees and clear representation on the board.
- Steve Carnes (DC Brau Brewing) raised concerns about the cost of DC-specific labeling and asked for clarity on redemption exemptions for on-premises consumption.
- Thor Cheston (Right Proper Brewing Company) opposed the bill, stating that the combined costs of commercial real estate, taxes, and regulatory compliance already create a difficult environment. He argued the bill would disproportionately harm local manufacturers who represent only 0.33% of beverage containers sold in DC.
- Chris Williams (Anacostia Watershed Society) strongly supported the bill, citing that bottle bills reduce beverage container litter by 69-84% and overall litter by 30-64%. He noted that 60-70% of trash collected from the Anacostia River is recyclable containers.
- Laura Nunn (Friends of Kingman and Heritage Islands) supported the bill, emphasizing its environmental justice benefits and potential to create green jobs. She highlighted that bottle bills empower youth and provide income for canners.
- Susan Shore (Sierra Club DC) supported the bill and urged restoration of the automatic deposit increase mechanism to prevent long-term decline in redemption rates.
- Tiffany Harvey (MD, DE, DC Beverage Association) opposed the bill, citing fraud risks, border issues, and the availability of alternative approaches like extended producer responsibility. She noted that neighboring states (Maryland, Virginia) have rejected similar bills.
- Bree Deatley (American Beverage Association) opposed the bill, arguing that DC's unique geography (surrounded by non-deposit states) makes fraud inevitable. She cited Connecticut's experience where border fraud led to emergency legislation and redemption rates exceeding 100%.
- Sean Townsend (Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington) acknowledged improvements in the revised draft but remained concerned about costs passed down to restaurants and operational uncertainties around container collection.
- Mary Quillian (Mr. Henry's Restaurant) supported the bill's goals but worried about logistics for restaurants to recover deposits, including storage, sanitation, and lack of clear collection pathways.
- Vanessa Batters Thompson (DC Appleseed) supported the bill, arguing it does not increase consumer beverage prices (citing a 2011 Massachusetts study) and would boost tourism and green jobs.
- Jim Connolly (Anacostia Watershed Society/real estate professional) supported the bill, noting that litter negatively impacts property values and community perception.
- Mike Smaha (Can Manufacturers Institute) supported the concept but recommended a phased deposit increase and placing deposit information on the can label rather than the lid. He also suggested returning more unredeemed deposits to the stewardship organization to fund fraud prevention.
- Brian Vickers (Glass Packaging Institute) supported the bill, noting that deposit systems provide the cleanest glass for recycling, reducing energy use and landfill costs.
Discussion Items
- Revised Draft Overview (Councilmember Allen): The revised draft exempts restaurants, hotels, bars, and retailers <2,000 sq. ft. from on-site redemption; caps daily redemptions at 250; exempts distributors selling <2 million containers from registration fees; and increases DOEE authority over collection standards. The automatic deposit increase mechanism was removed.
- Deposit Increase Mechanism: Multiple witnesses (Petchi, Shore, Thompson) urged restoration of the mechanism allowing DOEE to raise the deposit if redemption targets are missed for two consecutive years, arguing it prevents stagnation seen in other states. Opponents (Donovan, Deatley) warned of fraud and cost implications.
- Fraud Prevention: Witnesses discussed cross-border fraud risks, with Deatley estimating potential redemption rates exceeding 100%. The 250-container daily cap was debated as insufficient by some and overly restrictive by canners.
- Impact on Small Businesses: Local brewers and distillers expressed concerns about labeling, UPC requirements, and cash flow. Councilmember Allen acknowledged the challenges and committed to further engagement.
- Cost Analysis: The cost study by Donovan was contested; supporters noted the absence of savings from reduced litter and street cleaning. DPW spends >$20 million annually on litter cleanup.
- Environmental Benefits: Williams testified that 60-70% of trash in the Anacostia River is recyclable containers, and the district faces potential MS4 permit fines of up to $64,000/day.
Key Outcomes
- No Votes Taken: The roundtable was for information gathering; no formal action was taken.
- Next Steps: The committee will continue to work with stakeholders, especially small businesses and distributors, to refine the bill. Written testimony is due by July 23, 2026.
- DOEE Monitoring: DOEE representatives were present throughout the hearing to inform implementation planning.
- Revised Draft Retained: The committee will consider further amendments based on testimony, including potential restoration of the automatic deposit increase mechanism and additional relief for small manufacturers.
Meeting Transcript
Recording in progress. Good morning, everyone. I'm Charles Allen. I'm the Ward 6 Council Member and Chair of the Council's Committee on Transportation and the Environment. Today is Thursday, July 9th, 2026, and we're meeting both in room 123 of the John A. Wilson building as well as of the Zoom virtual platform. The time is now 9 44 a.m. And I am calling to order this public round table of the committee. I'll note we'd initially plan for this to be taking place in room 500. The AV is out in that room, so we need to switch rooms. So thanks for everyone's flexibility. We'll have a little more intimate setting here as well for a good conversation today. Today's round table is going to focus on Bill 26-58, which is the recycling, refund, and litter reduction amendment act, commonly referred to as the bottle bill. Since the original public hearing on the bill was held by the Committee on Business and Economic Development on October 1st, 2025, as well as in conversations with wide variety of stakeholders, this committee took the rare step to share a revised draft of the bill that incorporates feedback to try and address some of the concerns that have been raised by local businesses and the industry while also preserving the bill's underlying and ultimate goal of reducing the number of recyclable containers that end up in the trash or in our waterways or other natural environments. Today, we're going to hear again from many of our local businesses, brewers and distillers, distributors, subject matter experts on recycling and deposit programs, legislators from other jurisdictions, and environmental groups to receive additional feedback on this revised draft, which has been circulated to witnesses as well as posted on the council website. Because not everyone has actually gone and read that. Let me briefly outline where the revised draft differs from the introduced version. There's three major categories for the changes that we have considered in updating the legislation. First, in order to reduce burdens on retailers, we adopted the recommendation from this former CBED committee to exempt all hotels, restaurants, bars, and retail establishments with less than 2,000 square feet, or with on-premises consumption from the requirement to redeem containers on site. We also capped the number of containers that may be redeemed at 250 per day, also consistent with CBED's recommendation to help address and prevent fraud, which is also the approach that's been taken in Connecticut's bottle law. The committee also struck language that would have increased the bottle deposit after five years if redemption targets in the bill have not been met. Second, to lower fees for small distributors, including brewers, distillers, and wine importers. The revised draft exempts all distributors that distribute less than two million containers from paying registration fees into the stewardship program. And distributors selling between two million and ten million containers per year would pay less than a cent per container. These entities are exempted from paying into the bottle program, like our larger distributors. However, small distributors must still register their products in the program, and the committee looks forward to testimony from our smaller distributors on whether this still creates a significant burden or not. Among the other changes, the committee has also included language to ensure that communities and businesses will be guaranteed to have access to container collection across the district to allow bids and other nonprofit entities to partner with the bottle program and clarifies how large redemption centers will function as a part of the program. Now, witnesses today were limited by invitation, but members of the public are still encouraged and are able to submit written testimony using the council's hearing management system at Limbs.dccouncil.gov backslash hearings. I want to turn to colleagues for any opening statements they have before I call our first panel. So we have the lead author of the bill, Councilmember Brianna Doe who's joined us, and I want to turn to you, Councillor Nadeau, for any opening statement you have. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening us today. It is an honor actually to be here at this round table because uh this bill has been such a labor of love for so many of the people in the room here, and your stewardship of it, pun intended, is uh is so important at this critical juncture. DC has a litter problem. Rivers, streets, sidewalks, alleys, yards, and everything has a cost. Disposing of a product or its packaging has a cost. In the case of beverages with disposable containers, there's a huge cost, and it's been paid by taxpayers. As chair of the public works and Operations committee, I've learned in great detail just how much the district has to budget to clean up litter. By some metrics, we spend more money per mile to clean our streets than any other city in the country, and 80% of that litter is comprised of beverage containers. Six hundred and seventeen million bottles and cans per year are distributed and sold in the district, and we are paying for every single one of them. And it's no wonder that the big beverage industry doesn't want this bill. They don't want to pay for the cost to clean up the mess they create. They're throwing everything at the wall. It'll cost consumers more for their beverages. Categorically false. They cannot point to a single study to back that up. Consumers get back every cent they pay for the deposit. Fraudsters will collect empty containers in Maryland and Virginia and bring them by the truckload to DC to redeem them, even though the legislation includes clear solutions to that issue. This is the same industry that fought off a proposed bottle bill in the 80s by scaremongering people saying the people would get AIDS from the bottle redemption.
openpublica.com