On Friday, May 29, 2009, Judge Thomas P. Griesa of US District Court in Manhattan issued a preliminary injunction, halting the implementation of the “Bigger Better Bottle Bill” (the “Bill”) until April 1, 2010. The Bill represents the expansion of the current Bottle Bill, known as the New York State Returnable Container Act, N.Y. Envtl. Cons. L. 27-1000 (1982). Originally enacted in 1982, the Bottle Bill combats the problem of beverage can or bottle litter, by requiring containers—aluminum cans, glass, and plastic bottles for soft drinks, mineral and soda water, as well as beer and liquor—to carry a five cent deposit. Retailers, distributors, redemption centers, and bottlers are required to collect and redeem the five cent deposit on such beverage containers.
The Bill sought to expand the definition of “container” by including all bottles of water sold in the state. Governor David A. Paterson’s office introduced the Bill to the state Legislature in January 2009, with a definition of “water” that included drinks made with sugar, such as juices, iced teas, or sports drinks. The state legislature was hesitant to accept this definition and after negotiations, the Bill redefined “water” to include “any beverage identified through the use of letters, words or symbols on its product label as a type of water, including any flavored water or nutritionally enhanced water, provided, however, that ‘water’ does not include any beverage identified as a type of water which a sugar has been added.” N.Y. Envtl. Cons. L. § 27-1012.10.
Some New Yorkers found the distinction between water with sugar added and water with no sugar added particularly odd since last year Governor Paterson’s office introduced legislation to place an “obesity tax” on all drinks made with sugar. The “obesity tax” legislation was dropped shortly after it was introduced but the distinction between types of water was passed along with the Bill in April. Judith Enck, Governor Paterson’s Deputy Secretary for the Environment, recently answered questions about the distinction, stating that “[t]he Legislature only wanted to do water” and that “this was a necessary compromise to get the bill through.”
