On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 11:51:09 -0800 (PST), -bwg >
wrote:

>On Dec 28, 10:48*am, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> Now the Chicago city idiots have seen a reason to tax these bottles.
>> $.05 a bottle. *Rather that implement a better recycling program they
>> just want to make the extra 10.5 million per year in revenue. *If they
>> made a deposit on them litter would be eliminated. *But that would
>> make too much sense. *
>
>By the way, can municipalities require deposits on bottles?

Big cities can pretty much do whatever they want. Do you know
anything about Chicago politics?
>
>And, why deposits only on water bottles? And why not both deposits and
>taxes on the bottles?

I don't agree with a tax on water, but I'd have no problem with a huge
deposit. Cans, bottles included. Whatever it takes to get the stuff
recycled.

> Why encourage the use of municipally sourced water?

It might depend on where you live, but here the tap water is just as
good as bottled.

Lou