Is it time to End the

The “bottle bill,” became law in 1978 creating a 5¢ deposit on some bottles and cans of soda at the store. You can get have your nickel returned, when you return it to a redemption center...if you can find one.

In 2022, the law changed so that retailers selling these containers no longer had to redeem them. At last count, 26 counties don't have any redemption available, and Benton County is one of those. An article cites Cleaner Iowa’s poll saying that 64% of Iowa voters said it became more difficult to return them since the 2022 law.

The owner of the Can Shed, Troy Willard, has been redeeming cans for 30 years and said that “polls upon polls” shows support for the program. Of course, a guy who's in the business would say that. I would bet a nickel that the whole "polls upon polls" is made up because that would be good for his business.

A bill that advanced from a House subcommittee last week, would amend the state’s bottle bill to increase the number of redeemable containers to include non-carbonated drinks. Probably your water bottles, tea, you name it. So now your grocery bill will include another chunk for deposits and the clutter at home increases until you take a road trip to get rid of the cans...costing more than the cans are worth. Of course, your grocery bill goes up.

Evan Burger, co-owner of Ames Bottle and Can said, “It’s confusing to the customer when you’ve got two Celsius cans and one of them has five cents and one doesn’t, same material, same everything,” Burger said. “This is an easy, small solution to make the system work a little bit better.” House Study Bill 661 introduced by Rep. Devon Wood, R-New Market, said, “In my opinion, it should be the same can, same thing.”

Grocery stores and convenience stores registered against the bill. Brad Epperly, of the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, said expanding to additional containers would “add a tax” to Iowans since most do not participate in the redemption process. He's not wrong.

According to an AI search, "In Iowa, millions of cans go unredeemed each year, with estimates suggesting that consumers lose around $40 million on unreturned deposits. The unclaimed deposits are kept by beverage distributors, as the state does not track the exact amount that goes unreturned."

In other words, not returning your cans and bottles, like I don't, only benefits the beverage makers to the tune of $40 million. And the government wants to increase this amount. I'll get all conspiratorial here and ask, "Who's getting a political donation from the beverage companies?"

I say end it all. In the 70s, we didn't have recycling cans that could collect these, now we do. Everyone has a recycling bin, but now we have no way to get our nickels back. Seems logical, so of course the government won't see that...

Your thoughts? Should Iowa increase the number of cans and bottles requiring a deposit or end the deposit program completely?

Comments

Submit a Comment

TS March 2, 2026, 1:07 pm Yes, to the comment on Feb. 28.

It's the distributors who profit greatly.

CM February 28, 2026, 4:30 pm Let's call this what it is, a tax on pop and alcohol that helps fund the DNR and increases revenues to the distributor (depending on if you read the law or believe the press as to who benefits from the deposit). This is a topic that has been stuck in my craw since I returned to Iowa.
Is this a hidden way to fund the DNR, are legislators getting kick-backs or invested in the beverage distribution companies? The form this is in is far from what it was. It was enacted when recycling was in its infancy. You could get your deposit back from the same place you paid. I think it did help keep roadways cleaner and reduce the impact on landfills - at that time.
Since the original legislation was enacted, bottled water sales have surpassed pop and alcohol sales (as it applies here, not necessarily in the bars). I see more 5cent containers in the ditch and on the roadways than I see bottled water. When I visit border communities where the other state does not have a deposit, I see no difference in trash along the roadways - and if our law does what it says, none of that should be the case. If the law does what it says, I feel (my hypothesis could be wrong) I should see more litter in Iowa border communities and in the states without deposit laws because Iowans would go across the border to buy without having to pay a deposit and/or the other state's residents would litter more without the deposit law. I'm sure there are statistics out there somewhere, but I believe my eyes well enough.
If the law truly keeps things cleaner, ALL beverage containers should have a deposit, including water bottles and fountain containers. For pop, I no longer buy bottles and cans, I use the fountain...no deposit there! If I was going to throw out a can or bottle, I'm just as likely to throw out the fountain drink container...so we should have a deposit on those. As long as we're at it, I see tons if cigarette butts on the streets and sidewalks, far more than bottles, cans, and cups, so we should then put a deposit on those, besides the stated taxes on them. I don't think those filters degrade very well, better than plastic and aluminum, but I'd bet they cause problems to animals and the chemicals in the cigarettes caught in the filters leech into the soil and water.
If we keep the law, I should be able to receive my tax/deposit refund at the same place where it is collected. I should not have to pay for gas to drive to a redemption center located in a community I would not otherwise go to. I rarely go to the nearest communities that have a redemption center, and when I do, it isn't during their redemption hours. Sure, some have the barcoded bags you can buy, but I shouldn't have to pay in any part of the process to redeem my deposit. People say, donate the cans. I could, but how do I get a receipt? Please don't try to make a supportive argument for the law as it is by conflating making charitable donations with a disguised product tax. I don't litter and won't, but not having the ability to get my container deposit back easily makes me more likely to throw it in the trash. People I've talked to do the same. If there is a recycle container, I'll put it in there, but reducing impact on landfills is reason given for the container deposit? No, in the end, this is either a tax to support a State agency and/or to boost profits to the distributor disguised as something people won't argue against so they don't look like a litter bug. It needs to be updated to its real intent, updated so it aligns with the current stated intent, or abolished.

CH February 24, 2026, 8:08 am I live on 218 south of Vinton and the bottle bill has helped keep our yard clean. Most of us travel to CR and it is not hard to return bottles and cans.. it has worked so I say increase the containers covered...

kb February 23, 2026, 1:19 pm End it!!!

TS February 23, 2026, 1:05 pm We should retain the can/bottle bill,but enforce the Iowa law that says if there isn't a redemption site within 15 miles of the sale the retailer is required law to take/redeem the deposit. Right now, that would be every grocery and C-store in Vinton. Yes, a lot of the cans and bottles returned are not clean, tobacco chew, bugs, ants, dead mice, etc, but I've never heard of someone getting ill from handling them.
Rumor has it that there will be a can/bottle redemption site in Urbana soon. I hope so!

jt February 23, 2026, 11:55 am The original recycling of cans/bottles was never about getting a nickel back. The nickel was the incentive to keep the metal and plastic out of landfills. Ending the bottle bill would again cause landfill, waste management problems. There are many places to donate your empty cans/bottles to a worthwhile organization. I would like to see a Benton county can redemption place established now that local grocery stores do not have to take them back. Maybe use one of our "closed" car wash facilities?

Opinion : Is it time to End the "Bottle Bill"?

Comments