Oregon's landmark bottle recycling law may change due to concerns over drugs and homelessness

PORTLAND, Ore. — Monica Truax has lived in her Portland home since 1992, on a cul-de-sac she described as a close-knit community.
But since a bottle redemption center opened next door several years ago, her block has struggled with drug dealing, garbage and fights in the middle of the night, she said.
'It's just all completely changed,' she said. 'But the people are all still here, you know, all the residents are here still, and still raising their families.'
After more than five decades, Oregon's first-in-the-nation 'bottle bill' — now replicated in nine other states — faces a potential overhaul, with lawmakers considering new time restrictions on bottle redemption sites that some say have become magnets for drugs and homelessness.
The trailblazing law to reduce littering and encourage recycling cemented the state's reputation as a leader in the emerging environmental movement. It has also become a financial security net for many, including those experiencing homelessness.
The legislation echoes calls to modernize the bottle bill, with some saying changes are needed to address unintended consequences.
'He did not envision this,' Truax said of former Oregon Gov. Tom McCall, a Republican who signed the bottle bill into law. 'It's just a mess.'
Consumers originally paid a five-cent deposit on each eligible bottle or can, then collected the deposit when they redeemed the empty container at a retailer, such as a supermarket or convenience store.
Over the years, the program has expanded to accept containers and increased the deposit to 10 cents. Twenty-seven centers exclusively for returns have been opened across the state.
California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Vermont and Guam followed Oregon in adopting the concept, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
In Oregon, people can sign up for accounts in which their refunds are deposited or choose cash redemptions. Some stores count containers by hand. Other sites have counting machines or areas where account holders can drop off bags of containers.
The deposit has not kept pace with inflation — five cents in 1971 would be equal to 40 cents today, according to the consumer price index's inflation calculator — but many low-income residents rely on it.
Stores must accept container returns when they are open, and owners of all-night convenience stores, particularly in Portland, say they're concerned about employee safety.
In an op-ed for the Oregonian/OregonLive last year, Jonathan Polonsky, president and chief executive of the Plaid Pantry chain of convenience stores, wrote that fentanyl was selling for less than $1 a pill and 'a small number of cans add up to enough to buy drugs.'
People redeeming containers at night 'may be belligerent and intimidating, presenting a major safety risk to our store associates who have no choice under Oregon's Bottle Bill to handle returns at that hour,' he wrote.
Truax, who lives with her husband in northeast Portland, said homeless encampments and people relieving themselves in public were among the many things she had witnessed on her block.
'I've seen it all,' she said, describing the scourge of fentanyl as 'the cherry on the sundae.'
'It's just sad,' she added.
At the bottle redemption center near Truax's home, Chris Grass waited with his father and girlfriend in the long line outside the door. They each redeemed the maximum amount of 350 containers per person per day for $105 in cash to help pay for gas and provide some extra money for things like cigarettes and coffee while he's unemployed, he said.
'A lot of people don't like people that go out and can,' he said. 'But it's actually good for the environment.'
In 2023, roughly 87% of eligible containers were returned for redemption, according to the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission. That was the highest rate in the nation that year, according to the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative, which operates the bottle bill program on behalf of its distributor members.
The bill being considered by lawmakers would allow stores across the state to refuse container returns after 8 p.m.
In Portland, it would allow for 'alternative' redemption sites, including possible mobile sites such as trucks that travel to different neighborhoods. Nonprofits would run the alternative sites for people who redeem containers every day, relieving the pressure on retailers, particularly downtown.
Stores in an area with an alternative drop site could limit or refuse hand-counted returns, with convenience stores specifically allowed to stop them at 6 p.m.
The proposal is supported by retailers as well as groups including the Ground Score Assn., whose members include 'canners' and waste pickers who collect containers for income. The association operates a Portland redemption center under a bridge called the People's Depot that processes some 38,000 containers daily, according to its website.
It has denied claims that the bottle bill fuels the fentanyl crisis and says most people redeeming bottles need the money to make ends meet.
'Since becoming manager of The People's Depot, I'm learning how polarizing The Oregon Bottle Bill is,' the depot's operational manager, Kristofer Brown, said in written testimony supporting the bill.
Unlike in some other states, Oregon's bottle bill program is run by the private beverage industry rather than state government. The Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative retains unredeemed deposits, which topped $30 million in 2019, according to a 2020 state audit of the bottle bill.
The audit recommended several changes, including having some or all unredeemed deposits go to the state to help fund environmental programs.
Consolidated Oregon Indivisible Network, a progressive advocacy group, said in written testimony supporting the bill that 'money is piling up in the bottle deposit fund' and called for another government audit.
The Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative says unredeemed refunds go toward operating expenses for the beverage container redemption system.
The Legislature has until late June to approve the bill, which received overwhelming approval in the Senate and is now in the House.
Rush writes for the Associated Press.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Politico

an hour ago

• Politico

Republican plans to cap student borrowing could shatter an everyday profession

A series of changes to long-running federal student loan programs tucked into the Republican tax plan has doctors panicked and struggling to find GOP allies. The Senate education committee's portion of President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' bill includes a new cap on how much people can borrow for medical school and other professional programs that is well below the sticker price most students are facing. Lawmakers are also proposing to nix a class of federal loans graduate students use to cover housing and other non-tuition expenses. For low-income and first-generation college students with aspirations of becoming physicians, these plans, if enacted, could squash their dreams, according to medical college leaders. As the full Senate irons out the bill and Trump rattles school finances with funding freezes, doctors' groups are asking Congress to preserve the more generous loan options or risk a sharp drop in who's studying medicine — a profession that's already facing a shortage. While part of the stress on poorer students comes from the ever-increasing cost of higher education, the bill would likely push more of them toward private loans that require a co-signer, which are out of reach for many, and come with steeper interest rates. 'A lot of our medical schools, mine included, have a lot of first-generation college students. When they come into medical education, more times than not, they don't have co-signers,' said John L. Hummer, president of Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, a school with campuses in New Mexico and Florida for which 81 percent of students depend on the federal Grad PLUS program Republicans are looking to eliminate. The Senate education tax bill establishes a $200,000 ceiling on federal student loans for professional degrees, like medicine. But the median cost of attending four years of medical school for the class of 2025 is $286,454 for public institutions and $390,848 for private schools, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. It's a range that exceeds the costs many doctors now serving in Congress paid when they earned their degrees. Many did not respond to inquiries from POLITICO about how the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would affect medical school enrollment — and those that did were not sympathetic about student debt. 'You're looking at a person, a first-generation college student, who went to medical school, and didn't borrow money,' Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), who sits on the Senate HELP Committee, said. 'I worked my tail off. Anyone who is paying more than $100,000 to go to school is making a huge mistake.' Marshall graduated from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in 1987, when the average in-state tuition for a public medical school nationally was around $4,696. That sum in today's dollars is about $13,300 — far less than what the Kansas program costs in 2025. Members of the medical community believe limits on federal loans or steering students to borrow from private lenders will exacerbate a long-running national physician shortage the Association of American Medical Colleges projects could be as high as 86,000 doctors by 2036. David Bergman, senior vice president of government relations and health affairs at the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine, said students at medical schools his group represents have said it's been difficult to access private loans. Some lenders, like PNC Bank, hold student debt for which about 90 percent of private loans have a co-signer, while others had interest rates as high as 16 percent — nearly twice that of a Grad PLUS loan. 'The consequence of all this, of course, is that it's the low-income students who are going to suffer the most,' Bergman said. 'They may not have great credit, so then they may not be able to get the loans. Or they may get higher rate loans that put them further in debt.' One former Trump administration official shares this concern. 'I do worry about the assumption that the private sector is going to step in,' said Diane Jones, a former Education Department official from Trump's first term. 'Maybe they would, but I'm not sure they would step in to make loans available to low-income students.' Even some people in the lending business are skeptical the industry's bigger players will change their rules around co-signers. 'It just takes a lot more energy because it's riskier. Period. Banks aren't in the business of doing riskier products,' said Ken Ruggiero, co-founder and CEO of Ascent, a private loan company that will lend to applicants without a co-signer. 'They are in the business of talking to a person who has a very good income and credit score and letting the student sign the agreement.' The House version of the bill would also shut down Grad PLUS and put a cap on lending to graduate students for professional programs, putting pressure on the Senate to change course. But HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said there needs to be more accountability for the high tuition prices writ large that aren't exclusive to medical schools. 'There should be some ratio between earning potential and what it costs,' Cassidy said. 'I met with neurosurgeons and cosmetologists and they had the same discussion about the cost of education.' Jason Goldman, president of the American College of Physicians, which represents internal medicine doctors, related specialists and medical students, is skeptical that capping loan amounts would force medical schools to immediately lower tuition. Over the span of 21 years, medical school tuition has gone up 81 percent, outpacing inflation, according to AAMC. 'The reality is it's very expensive to train a physician — the amount of hours that go into lectures, labs, professors and housing and everything it takes to graduate is expensive,' Goldman said. He fears that some students may be dissuaded from becoming primary care doctors, a specialty where shortages are profound, especially in rural areas. Some in Congress have pushed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to address proposed limits to federal lending for student borrowers pursuing health care-related degrees. During a House Appropriations Committee hearing in May, Rep. Lois Frankel (D-Fla.) asked McMahon to take a look at aid programs that help students complete their degrees. 'We do know we have a shortage of nurses and doctors,' McMahon said. 'I think there are a lot of programs we can look at to train nurse technicians to get them into the marketplace faster.' Other Congress members have proposed student loan changes outside of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to address health care shortages. Sens. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) and Jackie Rosen (D-Nev.) introduced legislation in April that would create a student loan repayment program for specialists within medical professions who practice in rural areas. They also introduced the Specialty Physicians Advancing Rural Care Act in previous legislative sessions citing a dearth of providers in rural communities. 'The entire nation is dealing with a physician shortage, and rural communities in Mississippi have been particularly affected,' Wicker said in a statement. 'Congress can help provide a solution.' Jones, the official from Trump's first term, also worries that some students may have to forgo medical school because they won't be able to secure financial assistance. She attended medical school in the 1980s when the loan program she was using was suspended, ultimately leading her to drop out because she could no longer afford the program. 'I didn't have a parent who could co-sign for a private loan, and I didn't have access to any other resources,' she said. 'I personally lost the opportunity to pursue the career that I wanted, that I had earned the right to pursue.'

Hamilton Spectator

2 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

US strikes 3 Iranian nuclear sites, inserting itself into Israel's war with Iran

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The United States attacked three sites in Iran early Sunday, inserting itself into Israel's war aimed at destroying the country's nuclear program in a risky gambit to weaken a longtime foe that prompted fears of a wider regional conflict. Addressing the nation from the White House, President Donald Trump asserted that Iran's key nuclear sites were 'completely and fully obliterated.' There was no independent damage assessment. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran confirmed that attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted that its nuclear program will not be stopped. Iran and the U.N. nuclear watchdog said there were no signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations. It was not clear whether the U.S. would continue attacking Iran alongside its ally Israel, which has been engaged in a war with Iran for nine days. Trump acted without congressional authorization , and he warned that there would be additional strikes if Tehran retaliated against U.S. forces. 'There will either be peace or there will be tragedy for Iran,' he said. Iran's top diplomat, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, warned in a post on X that the U.S. attacks 'will have everlasting consequences' and that Tehran 'reserves all options' to retaliate. Hours later, Iranian missiles struck areas in northern and central Israel, according to an Israeli rescue service. United Hatzalah said it was dispatching first responders, but here was no immediate word on casualties or damage. The US helped Israel strike Iran's toughest nuclear site Iran has maintained that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, and U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that Tehran is not actively pursuing a bomb. However, Trump and Israeli leaders have claimed that Iran could quickly assemble a nuclear weapon, making it an imminent threat. The decision to directly involve the U.S. in the war comes after more than a week of strikes by Israel that significantly degraded Iran's air defenses and offensive missile capabilities, and damaged its nuclear enrichment facilities. But U.S. and Israeli officials have said American B-2 stealth bombers and the 30,000-pound (13,500-kilogram) bunker-buster bomb that only they have been configured to carry offered the best chance of destroying heavily fortified sites connected to the Iranian nuclear program buried deep underground. Trump appears to have made the calculation — at the prodding of Israeli officials and many Republican lawmakers — that Israel's operation had softened the ground and presented a perhaps unparalleled opportunity to set back Iran's nuclear program, perhaps permanently. 'We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,' Trump said in a post on social media, using common alternate spellings for two of the sites. 'All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home.' Trump added in a later post: 'This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD. IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR. THANK YOU!' Israel announced Sunday that it had closed its airspace to both inbound and outbound flights in the wake of the U.S. attacks. The White House and Pentagon did not immediately elaborate on the operation. U.S. military leaders are scheduled to provide a briefing at 8 a.m. Eastern. The attack used bunker-buster bombs on Iran's Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant that is built deep into a mountain, a U.S. official said. The weapons are designed to penetrate the ground before exploding. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss military operations. In addition, U.S. submarines launched about 30 Tomahawk missiles, according to another U.S. official who also spoke on condition of anonymity. The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote on X that there has been 'no increase in off-site radiation levels' after the strikes. 'The IAEA can confirm that no increase in off-site radiation levels has been reported as of this time,' it said. The 'IAEA will provide further assessments on situation in Iran as more information becomes available.' Trump's turn to strikes departs from some previous statements The strikes are a perilous decision for Trump, who won the White House on the promise of keeping America out of costly foreign conflicts and scoffed at the value of American interventionism. But Trump also vowed that he would not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, and he had initially hoped that the threat of force would bring the country's leaders to give up its nuclear program peacefully. For months, Trump said he was dedicated to a diplomatic push to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. And he twice — in April and again in late May — persuaded Netanyahu to hold off on military action against Iran and give diplomacy more time. After Israel began striking Iran, Trump went from publicly expressing hope that the moment could be a 'second chance' for Iran to make a deal to delivering explicit threats on Khamenei and making calls for Tehran's unconditional surrender. He has bristled at criticism from some of his MAGA faithful who have suggested that further U.S. involvement would be a betrayal to supporters who were drawn to his promise to end U.S. involvement in expensive and endless wars. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's decision to attack in a video message directed at the American president. 'Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities, with the awesome and righteous might of the United States, will change history,' he said. Netanyahu said the U.S. 'has done what no other country on earth could do.' The military showdown with Iran comes seven years after Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Obama-administration brokered agreement in 2018, calling it the 'worst deal ever.' Fears of a broader war U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was 'gravely alarmed' by the 'dangerous escalation' of American strikes. 'There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control — with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region and the world,' he said in a statement. Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen said they would resume attacks on U.S. vessels in the Red Sea if the Trump administration joined Israel's military campaign. The Houthis paused such attacks in May under a deal with the U.S. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Wednesday that strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will 'result in irreparable damage for them.' And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei declared 'any American intervention would be a recipe for an all-out war in the region.' The Israeli military said Saturday it was preparing for the possibility of a lengthy war, while Iran's foreign minister warned before the U.S. attack that American military involvement 'would be very, very dangerous for everyone.' Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 865 people and wounded 3,396 others, according to the Washington-based group Human Rights Activists. The group said of those dead, it identified 363 civilians and 215 security force personnel. Trump's decision for direct U.S. military intervention comes after his administration made an unsuccessful two-month push — including with high-level, direct negotiations with the Iranians — aimed at persuading Tehran to curb its nuclear program. ___ Madhani reported from Morristown, N.J. Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi and Mehdi Fattahi in Iran, Lolita Baldor in Narragansett, Rhode Island, Samy Magdy in Cairo, contributed to this story. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Axios

4 hours ago

• Axios

Top Democrats left in dark on Iran strike plans

Top Democrats on Capitol Hill say they weren't briefed in advance of the U.S. attack on Iran on Saturday, multiple sources familiar with the discussions told Axios. Why it matters: Democrats left Capitol Hill for the Juneteenth holiday recess without answers to what they said were basic questions about a potential strike against Iran. "Cost, duration, risk to our troops, strategy — the basics before we make a decision of this consequence," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Axios last week. Zoom in: Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), the top Democrats on the Senate and House Intelligence panels, weren't briefed before the attack, sources familiar told Axios on Saturday. Their Republican counterparts were given advance notice. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was given what was described by a source as a perfunctory notice shortly before President Trump's announcement on Saturday night. Himes' committee staff received official notification about the strike from the Pentagon only after Trump made the announcement on social media, another source familiar with the events told Axios. Between the lines: Senators are scheduled to receive a classified briefing on the situation on Tuesday.