Washington’s recycling system may soon get a makeover. 

A proposal to require companies to reduce unnecessary packaging and fund statewide recycling services is making its way through the Legislature this year. 

The goal is to give more people the opportunity to recycle more types of products and to incentivize packaging producers to use sustainable materials, said bill sponsor Rep. Liz Berry, D-Seattle. Currently, what can be recycled differs by city, and 11 counties have no recycling services at all. Under this proposal, everyone in the state would use the same system. 

“Recycling will become really affordable, really convenient and really equitable,” Berry told the Standard. “It will create this circular, sustainable economic model for recyclable materials.”

Berry’s bill is similar to laws passed recently in Maine, Oregon, California, Colorado and Minnesota. Different versions of the legislation have been debated in Washington during the past two years but never became law. 

Under the program, manufacturers, brands and importers must join a statewide “producer responsibility organization.” 

Producers are required to pay membership fees to that organization to cover the cost of a new recycling system. Fees vary based on the types of products a company uses. If a producer uses more sustainable materials, for example, they would likely pay less. 

If a producer does not want to join the statewide organization, they must register as an individual and pay annual fees to the state.

A national producer responsibility organization already exists to help implement this type of system in California, Colorado and Maryland. 

By March 2029, producers who are not members of the organization or registered with the state could not sell their products in Washington.

Under the bill, the Department of Ecology would develop a list of recyclable materials in Washington. Most plastic packaging and paper products sold, distributed or shipped into and within the state would likely be covered. 

The Department of Ecology would also work on a new education campaign — paid for by producer fees — to make sure all residents know what products they can recycle.

Brenda Fincher, a Kent City Council member, said that the statewide education piece will help clear up confusion.

“It’s uncountable the number of times that I’ve heard that recycling is not happening or that everything can be recycled,” Fincher said at a Thursday press conference. “It’s confusing for the residents right now.”

There would be some exemptions under the proposal. Government entities and charitable organizations would not have to take part. Packaging on infant formula, nutritional supplements, medical equipment and drugs, and hazardous products would be among those not covered. 

If the bill passes, residents could expect to see a change in how they recycle within the next five years, Berry said. The program would be fully implemented within 10 years of passage.

‘Streamlined’ bill

This year’s proposal is supported by environmental groups, cities and counties, labor unions, medical professionals and some producers. 

Dr. Mark Vossler, with Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility, said plastic pollution is having negative health effects, especially for those who live close to industrial sites. 

“This is a tremendous environmental justice concern,” Vossler said at a Thursday press conference. “Accountability measures will incentivize companies to move away from toxic or harmful packaging materials.”

Berry said she is hopeful this is the year the proposal finally passes. This version is “shorter and more streamlined” than in the past, and it’s mostly based on the Minnesota bill that became law last year and had broad support, she said.

Berry added that she’s worked on the bill for years and has found many compromises with those who were previously opposed.

“I’m really hoping that members of the Legislature will see how isolated the opposition is at this point and understand that what we’re trying to do is something positive for our state,” she said.

The bill is expected to receive a public hearing in the House Environment and Energy Committee on Tuesday.

Pushback

Despite broad support, the legislation could still run into stiff opposition, particularly from manufacturers, businesses and waste management companies. 

Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy, said in a statement that she and other Republicans have concerns that the bill would enact “expensive mandates” that could increase costs for consumers. 

“I believe we need to spend wisely by targeting investments to underperforming counties to increase recycling,” Dye said. “We do not need to put new fee increases on packaged products during our current affordability crisis.”

Dye is among those supporting a different recycling bill that does not require businesses to pay. 

That proposal would require producers to register and report their paper products and packaging to the Department of Ecology, which would create a public list of recyclable materials. The bill would also set new standards for how much recyclable material must be in certain products. And it would provide recycling discounts for low-income households.

Rep. Jake Fey, D-Tacoma, is sponsoring this other bill, which has bipartisan support. In a hearing on Thursday, it received backing from business groups, waste management companies, and food and hospitality organizations. Local government organizations, environmental groups and utilities were among those who testified against the bill.