U.S. Recycling in Return Mode: How Deposit-Return Programs Are Poised to Unlock America’s Circular Economy

Manufacturers, recyclers and policy analysts unite behind “recycling refunds,” calling them the linchpin for scaling domestic supply chains and cutting costs to local governments.

Recycling and packaging leaders from three major industries convened this month to make a decisive declaration that modern deposit-return systems are no longer a niche environmental fix. Rather, they are emerging as a central strategy for the 21st-century U.S. economy, capable of reducing litter, lowering municipal costs, strengthening domestic manufacturing and closing raw-material loops.

Kate Bailey of the Association of Plastic Recyclers observed that roughly 60 % of all PET bottles recycled in the U.S. come from the ten states that maintain bottle-bill programs. Absent such systems, she argued, “We would have half the recycling industry we have today.”

Mike Smaha of the Can Manufacturers Institute pointed out that the national recycling rate for aluminum beverage cans remains stuck at approximately 43 %, meaning more than half of all cans are either landfilled or lost before they can re-enter manufacturing. Domestic can-sheet producers, having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. capacity, now find themselves starved of feedstock. He described recycling refunds as, “Hands down the best policy for getting those cans back.”

Glass tells a similar story. The clean, furnace-ready cullet needed by bottle-makers and fiberglass producers is overwhelmingly sourced from deposit states, where intact bottles return to stream rather than being crushed, fouled or rejected. Scott DeFife of the Glass Packaging Institute noted that culprit contamination makes single-stream curbside returns far less reliable.

Together these executives worked to dismiss a set of recurring objections: that recycling-refund programs conflict with curbside collection, that commodity glass is worthless, that wine bottles cannot conform to deposit machines, and that consumers will recoil at added inconvenience. Bailey countered that most material-recovery facilities (MRFs) can adapt and that modern deposit legislation increasingly includes transitions that smooth the change­over. Members of the panel referenced voter polling in Rhode Island and Massachusetts showing strong support for deposits, not burden.

Underlying this policy argument is a powerful economic reality that recycling refunds strengthen domestic supply chains. With global trade disruption and surging tariffs affecting everything from PET resin to metal ingots, the panel stressed the urgency of “remade in America” models that keep feedstock, manufacturing and jobs on U.S. soil.

As states across the country—including Washington, Maryland, Rhode Island, New York, Michigan and Illinois—either revisit deposit legislation or implement EPR laws, the panelists expect 2026-2027 to be a watershed period for U.S. recycling policy. With state and local budgets under stress and litter burdens growing, both cost-efficiency and economic-resilience arguments are becoming sharper. The message: recycling refunds do more than clean streets—they unlock value.

For Texans for Clean Water, the takeaway is clear. If Texas enacts a modern deposit-return system, it will not only reduce litter along storm drains and rivers, but also feed domestic manufacturing plants, stabilize supply chains and deliver value back to communities and taxpayers.