CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 25 April 2017
Plastic Bag Policy and Enforcement in the United States Abrianna Soule, University of Michigan
This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. This paper was submitted as part of the Winter 2017 course Environ 302: Energy and Environmental Policy Research, made possible through funding provided by the University of Michigan Third Century Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency
Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan
1 ENVIRON 302 Plastic Bag Policy and Enforcement in the United States Abrianna Soule Abstract: In the United States, there is a growing concern about the negative impacts of singleuse plastic bags on human health and the environment. Several local and subnational governments have implemented bans on the use of plastic bags as a result of this concern, but to date, there is no published policy research addressing the enforcement provisions of plastic bag bans in the U.S. In this study, I inventory all state and municipal plastic bag bans in the U.S. to identify any trends in enforcement provisions, specifically in fines assessed for noncompliance. I find that the majority of these policies (87.1%) specified fines as the form of penalty. There is variability, though, in the type and amount of fines and in the locus of enforcement, with nearly half of all bans not designating a specific enforcement locus (48.5%). This study provides evidence that specifying enforcement is important in the policymaking process for plastic bag bans, and has farreaching implications for future research on public behavior related to environmental regulations and waste reduction. Introduction: In 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Agency estimated that between 500 billion and 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed annually worldwide (Roach, 2003). While some plastic bags are recycled, the majority end up in landfills and many contribute to litter. This can
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
2
create an eyesore in a community and/or cause ecological issues in terrestrial and particularly marine environments. For example, two studies of plastic debris on several island shores off Jakarta Bay in Indonesia found that “plastic bags, polystyrene blocks, and discarded footwear accounted for 80 percent of the items found” (Le Guern Lytle, 2009). In marine ecosystems, plastic bags are often mistaken as jellyfish or other potential prey for many predatory animals including porpoises and sea turtles. As these predators consume plastic bags and die, the population distribution of organisms throughout the trophic web is affected, causing ecological imbalances in the ecosystem. Plastic bags can take up to 1000 years to decompose, so whether they end up in landfills, or as terrestrial or marine litter, they pose an evident threat to environmental health. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the implementation of antiplastic bag policies; that is, policies that seek to ban, restrict, or strongly discourage the use of plastic bags. These policies have been implemented around the globe at various levels of government including local (cities/counties), subnational (state/province), and national. Antiplastic bag policies have primarily arisen due to increasing public concern about the negative effects of plastic bags on environmental health. In the U.S., there is no federal policy regarding the use of plastic bags, although antiplastic bag policies have been proposed in Congress. For example, Mr. Moran of Virginia (Democrat) in the 111th House of Representatives proposed a bill in 2009 that would have implemented a tax on retailers for the purchase of “singleuse carryout bags.” These include grocery bags, takeout bags, retail bags, drycleaning bags, etc. but exclude bags used to store bulk fruit/vegetables, bags used by pharmacies for prescription drugs, and bags sold in bulk within the store such as trash or yard waste bags (Plastic Bag, 2009). The bill also proposed a
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
3
plastic bag recycling program where participating stores could provide their customers with plastic bags which can be returned for a deposit. Further, in 2010 another bill was proposed urging the federal government to provide support to state and local governments to establish plastic bag recycling programs (Encouraging State, 2010). Although neither of these bills passed, their proposition indicates that plastic bags and the negative effects on environmental health have created concern at the national level. In spite of the lack of federal policy regarding plastic bag sale and consumption, there are various city, county, and state policies. Hawaii has a d e facto statewide ban, New York, Maine, Rhode Island, and Delaware have labeling, recycling or reuse programs, Washington D.C. has a plastic bag tax, and California has both a ban and labeling, recycling, and reuse programs. In contrast, Arizona, Idaho, and Missouri have preemptive policies prohibiting local governments in these states to regulate plastic bag sale, use, and distribution (Schultz, 2016). Notable cities and counties which have plastic bag bans and/or fees include Austin, TX, Seattle, WA, Chicago, IL, New York, NY, and Montgomery County, MD. Further, some states adopted plastic bag policies that were later rescinded. For example, Alaska adopted an ordinance instituting a 5 cent plastic bag fee in September of 2009 that was rescinded in October of that same year (Romer, 2014). While all of these policies are a step in the right direction to reducing the damaging effects of plastic bag waste, they are only effective if enforced. It appears that inconsistencies in or lack of enforcement is a major issue with plastic bag policies. With little to no clarity regarding policy enforcement, there is a lack of incentive for businesses and consumers to comply. This paper seeks to discuss plastic bag policies in the U.S.,
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
4
and to inventory and identify any trends in the enforcement provisions of existing local plastic bag bans. Policy and Public Behavior Policy implementation affects public behavior and vice versa. Usually a social movement or norm emergence is a driving factor behind a new policy and once a policy is in place, it has the potential to create or increase the prevalence of new social norms, thereby changing public behavior. It is important to consider public behavior in the context of enforcement, as heavier enforcement influences public behavior moreso than light or no enforcement. A study done by Clapp et al. (2009) on plastic bag policy implementation at the international level shows that antiplastic bag societal norms often coincides with antiplastic bag policies; in fact, antiplastic bag societal norms are important for inspiring these policies. However, there is yet “no international level treaty or institution to govern the adoption of the norm” (Clapp, 2009, pp. 4). The authors conclude that, as is evident in the case of plastic bags, a collection of local movements can cause a global shift in sentiment towards an environmental issue, though it may not inspire “‘global’level action and attention” (Clapp, 2009, pp. 45). Additionally, the authors discuss industry resistance to antiplastic bag policy and the large role it plays in lack of national action in the U.S. Therefore, future policy implementation will likely continue at the subnational level, but any national or global policy action will take years to achieve. A study done by Njeru (2006) found that a shift in public attitude regarding plastic bag use in Nairobi, Kenya inspired a antiplastic bag policy proposal from the combined efforts of the
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
5
United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the government of Kenya (GOK). The authors also found that resistance to adopting the UNEP/GOK policy likely comes from trade and industry stakeholders such as plastic bag producers (Njeru, 2006). The UNEP/GOK proposal recommends “(a) a ban on plastic bags of less than 30 μm; (b) consumer awareness and antilittering campaigns promotions; (c) schemes such as a national code of practice for retailers be promoted; (d) plastic bag levy be collected from suppliers and producers; and (e) environmentally friendly alternative bags be developed” (Njeru, 2006, pp. 6). This study and the study by Clapp et al. (2009) both provide insight about the various barriers for plastic bag policy implementation at larger scales, implying that implementation at the subnational level may be easier to achieve in the short term. While Njeru (2006) and Clapp et al. ( 2009) both focus on the impact of public attitude shifts affecting policy, the work of Bell et al. (2012) instead displays the importance of policies for changing public behavior. This study displays the importance of policies for changing public behavior. The article investigates how recycling laws and policies affect recycling behaviors in communities within the United States. The authors use an inventory of policies approach for their methodology, comparing how recycling behavior varies before and after the implementation of plastic bottle deposit laws in two states. The article describes several factors that should be present in future policy to maximize recycling rates including but not limited to “mandated separation of recyclables, the availability of a recycling center in the community, and the provision of curbside pickup at houses or recycling locations” (Bell, 2012, Abstract). Although this study does not discuss plastic bags specifically, it still provides a helpful example of policy influencing public behavior.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
6
Policy Enforcement While the importance of enforcement makes sense intuitively, there is yet no published research on plastic bag policy or waste management, for that matter that has included discussion of enforcement. For this reason, in this section I largely consider tobacco policy, as these policies are among the most researched in regards to their enforcement and effectiveness. The implications taken from tobacco policy enforcement may likely be applied in broader context for plastic bag legislation. A study done by Forster et al . (1996) provides evidence for a relationship between policy enforcement and efficacy. The article investigates tobacco policy in 222 of the 229 cities with populations greater than 2000 in Minnesota, USA and the level of policy enforcement concerning tobacco availability to minors. The authors use a survey of city ordinances and local enforcement for their methodology; they sent a letter to the city clerks of each of the 222 cities in the study asking for a copy of all ordinances having to do with tobacco control as well as which agency provided law enforcement. The authors conclude that although progress has been made in the state of Minnesota by enacting local ordinances, “access to tobacco will not be restricted unless these laws are enforced” (Forster, 1996, p. 50). In the year surveyed, less than 25% of police officials reported any efforts to determine if stores were abiding by the tobacco legislation. Another study, done by DiFranza e t al. ( 1998), surveys 6 communities in Massachusetts to determine effective enforcement of tobacco laws. All 6 communities conducted compliance tests in order to enforce tobacco regulations, whereby minors would enter a place of business to purchase tobacco under the supervision of an adult. These compliance tests worked best in smaller communities, as larger communities required more manpower and organization to conduct
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
7
these tests 3 to 4 times annually. Businesses which continued to make illegal sales became eligible to lose their tobacco sales permit after multiple violations during compliance tests. This study shows that compliance tests may be an effective method of policy enforcement, especially in smaller communities. Further, a study done by Jacobson & Wasserman (1999) shows the implementation and enforcement of tobacco laws in seven states and nineteen localities. The authors find that the “locus of enforcement responsibility,” including the agency charged with the task of policy enforcement as well as the person or establishment responsible for policy compliance, is an important factor to consider in regards to the sanctions available to the enforcement agency (Jacobson & Wasserman, 1999). The most interesting implication of this study, and arguably the most applicable to plastic bag legislation, is that “failure to specify such [enforcement] mechanisms in the legislation will lead to delays in implementing and enforcing the laws as well as to a number of compliance problems” (Jacobson & Wasserman, 1999). This finding is interesting in the context of plastic bag policies, considering that current policies may not specify the level or mechanism of enforcement, which will be determined in the results of this paper. Summary Considering the growing concern about plastic bags as an environmental health issue in the United States, plastic bag policy is an important topic to study. Thus far, policy research on on this topic has not included discussion of enforcement, although enforcement level and locus may have a profound effect on policy efficacy and public behavior. Therefore, this paper seeks to
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
8
answer the question: are there any identifiable trends in the enforcement provisions of existing plastic bag bans at the local and state level in the United States? Methods: I nventory This study focuses on existing plastic bag bans at the subnational level in the United States, including city, county, and state policies. The local and subnational policies included in this study are comprised of those listed on BagLaws.com (“Bag Laws”, 2016). This website was checked for completeness using three separate sources National Conference of State Legislatures (Schultz, 2016), Plasticbaglaws.org (Romer, 2014), and Surfrider Foundation (Plastic, 2015). There may be additional plastic bag ban legislation not included on these four websites but, as there has yet been little research conducted about plastic bag policies in the United States, these credible sites are the only sources considered. Additionally, due to the limited time of this research project and large number of local plastic bag bans in the U.S., I only consider local and state plastic bag bans, and will not include fees, recycling programs, or preemptive policies. Thus, a total of 93 existing plastic bag bans are used in this study 92 at the municipal level, and one at the state level (California). Hooper Bay, Alaska was an outlier because although they have a widely recognized plastic bag ban, I was unable to locate the record of this policy. For this reason, I will not include Hooper Bay, AK in my results. The first set of variables considered is policy design including the type of fine, if any, and locus of enforcement, as well as the year the policy was passed. Specifically, I review the legislation for any explicit guidelines for policy enforcement. For example, if a fine is used, the amount is considered. Further, I assess whether there are any warnings or escalation of
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
9
consequences with repeated policy infractions. As shown in the tobacco enforcement study by Forster et al. ( 1996), policy enforcement is the only way to truly ensure it’s effectiveness in changing public behavior. Therefore, it is likely that plastic bag policies which mandate strict enforcement will be the most effective in practice. Additionally, the locus of enforcement responsibility is considered if enforcement is specified in the legislation. It will be interesting to observe who the enforcement of plastic bag policies fall on and if there is any effect on policy implementation and compliance with varying enforcement agencies and complying persons or establishments. The partisanship or political climate of the state or municipality where plastic bag policies are enacted is also considered as a variable in this study. This is determined by looking at the percentage of votes for one of the major parties in the last presidential election (2012) in each state or municipality (Presidential, 2017). I anticipate that most areas where plastic bag policies are successfully enacted lean to the left politically or vote blue. For example, California, the first and to date, only state in the U.S. to enact a statewide plastic bag ban, has voted democrat since 1964 (Krishnakumar et al. , 2016). Additionally, prior to the statewide ban California had the largest number of municipallevel plastic bag bans 67 ordinances covering 88 municipalities, according to the SurfRider Foundation (Plastic, 2013). Also, recent evidence suggests that, generally, more environmentallyfriendly states tend to vote blue in presidential elections (Frost, 2017). Therefore, partisanship is important to consider in studies of environmental policy. Heavy partisanship may be correlated with the enforcement level of environmental policies as well. I predict that democratic jurisdictions will generally have stricter levels of enforcement. Additionally, the presence or absence of bottle deposit legislation will be considered as a variable
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
10
as it is possible that local governments in states with bottle deposit legislation will have additional environmental regulations like plastic bag bans. The final set of variables considered in this study are demographic including population size and economic conditions. The state or municipality’s economic conditions will be taken into account using per capita income as well as proportion of households receiving public assistance income in a given area. Proportion of households receiving public assistance income will be used as a proxy for poverty. This information is taken from the American Community Survey's 5year estimates (20112015), accessed through Social Explorer (U.S. Census, 2017). It should be noted that information about the chosen demographics was unable to be located for 12 of the 93 governments on Social Explorer, and these localities are excluded from the analysis based on these variables. Population size may affect level of plastic bag policy enforcement; jurisdictions with smaller populations may be more successful in creating a comprehensive enforcement plan and implementing this in their community. Further, there may be a direct relationship between per capita income and enforcement of plastic bag policies. Purchasing reusable bags is likely a financial burden, especially on those living in poverty. Also, some people may use plastic carryout bags as a free alternative to purchasing small trash bags which may further support the idea that those living in poverty would be less likely to ban plastic bags. Specifically, I predict that areas with a low per capita income will have little to no plastic bag policies, whereas plastic bag policies will be prevalent in areas with higher per capita income. Conversely, areas with a higher proportion of the population using public assistance income will likely have little to no plastic bag policies, while areas with less people using public assistance income will have more plastic bag policy prevalence.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
11
Results: Of the 93 plastic bag bans studied, 81 specified fines as the type of enforcement (Fig. 1A) and imposed these fines on retail establishments rather the enduser/consumer. However the level of enforcement varied greatly, including the presence of a written warning, and the amount and type of fine. Figure 1B shows that the majority of plastic bag bans with specified enforcement issue written warnings to retail establishments for their first infraction (56.8%). Many policies did not specify how much and how often a fine could be imposed upon a retail establishment (30.9%), whereas some would impose a fine of the same amount for every infraction (11.1%) and others would escalate the fine amount with every infraction (58%). This data is shown in Figure 1C. Figure 1: Fine Specification, Type, and Written Warning A) Specified Fines 81 of 93 plastic bag bans specified enforcement, 11 did not, and 1 policy (Hooper Bay, AK) could not be located.
B) Written Warning 46 of 81 (excluding Austin, TX) plastic bag bans with specified fines issue a written warning to retail establishments for first violation, 35 do not.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
12
C) Type of Fine 47 of 81 plastic bag bans (excluding Austin, TX) with specified enforcement has escalating fines, 9 had continuing, and 25 did not specify the fine schedule
In addition to variance in fine type, the fine amount varied as well. Unfortunately, the fine amount was also not specified in every policy. For those that were, I determined the range of fine amounts. For escalating fines, the range of minimum, as well as maximum fines was compared (Table 1). California, being the only state included in this study, was excluded from the data with an escalating fine at a minimum of $1,000 for the first violation, and $5,000 for the third and subsequent violations. Table 1: Range of Fines
Continuing/Unscheduled
Escalating Min
Escalating Max
Minimum
$50
$25
$50
Maximum
$2,000
$150
$600
Range of fines for city and county plastic bag bans (state policies excluded): Escalating fine minimums had the smallest range of $125. Escalating fine maximums had the an intermediate range of $550. Continuing/unscheduled fines had the largest range of $1,950.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
13
The locus of enforcement responsibility, or “enforcer,” for each plastic bag ban also varied (Figure 2). The majority of policies did not specify the enforcer (32.67%), however the Board of Health and/or police department were the most common loci of enforcement responsibility (19.8 and 17.82%, respectively). It should be noted that “not specified” includes policies which did not explicitly state any enforcer as well as those that used generic or nondescript terms for enforcer such as “code enforcement officer” or “director.” Additionally, while California did not technically specify the enforcement locus, the statewide ban allows “c ity, county, or city and county, or the state to impose civil penalties” for noncompliance (California, 2014). Figure 2: Who Enforces?
Enforcer: 33 bans did not specify the locus of enforcement responsibility. 15 specified that e ither the local Board of Health or police department would be responsible for enforcing the ban. 20 Board of Health, 18 police department, 10 city/town manager, 2 city/town attorney, and 18 other including but not limited to, environmental health boards, county engineer, director of public utilities, and inspection services department.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
14
Analysis: Population Size There appears to be a slight correlation between population size and fine type. That is, jurisdictions with smaller populations are slightly more likely to have an escalating fine than are jurisdictions with larger populations. This provides some support for my hypothesis that smaller populations are more likely to have stricter enforcement than are large populations. Additionally, localities with smaller populations are more likely to specify the “Board of Health” as the locus of enforcement responsibility. The issuance of a written warning and fine amount had no correlation with population size, however. This may be due to the fact that 12 of the 93 locations in the study did not have American Community Survey 5year estimates for population size. Policies sorted by smallest to largest population size are shown below (Appendix A), excluding California as it was a clear outlier for this demographic variable. Per Capita Income Surprisingly, there is no correlation between per capita income and fine amount. This finding is especially interesting because it means that plastic bag bans and their fine enforcement may have a universal framework which can be applied across a variety of socioeconomic situations potentially throughout the rest of the U.S. There is also no correlation between per capita income and the issuance of a written warning or fine amount, and no evident relationship with locus of enforcement responsibility. Per capita income may have a weak correlation with enforcement specification. That is, it is slightly more likely that a location specified some level of fine in their plastic bag ban with higher per capita income. Fine type, however, showed no distinct
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
15
correlation with per capita income. As with population size, 12 of 93 locations did not have data available for per capita income from Social Explorer, so the data may be skewed. This data is shown below in Appendix B. Public Assistance Income There appears to be a slight correlation between proportion of households receiving public assistance income and fine amount. Generally, areas with a higher percentage of public assistance income have larger fine amounts. Initially this result seems counterintuitive, however it may be due to the fact that the responsibility of fines is always placed on the retail establishment and not the consumer. Additionally, people of low socioeconomic status have been shown to disproportionately experience the negative health effects of poor environmental regulations (WHO, 2010), so these communities may have greater incentive to implement stricter enforcement levels on their plastic bag bans. There also is a weak relationship between public assistance income and specification of enforcer. That is, jurisdictions with lower proportions of households on public assistance income are less likely to have specified a locus of enforcement responsibility within their plastic bag ban, and vice versa. Finally, there is no evident correlation between public assistance income and fine type, issuance of written warning, or locus of enforcement responsibility. This data is shown below in Appendix C. Partisanship The vast majority of plastic bag bans occurred in counties (or for California, a state) which voted democrat in the 2012 presidential election, which was consistent with my
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
16
predictions. Further, democratic jurisdictions also had a much higher likelihood of specifying a fine, as well as a much higher average maximum fine almost double that of republican jurisdictions. California was excluded from analysis of partisanship and maximum fine amount because it skewed the data. However, California is a democratic state with a very large maximum fine specified for their plastic bag ban ($5,000), so this only intensifies the trends shown (see Table 2). There is no clear relationship between partisanship and the presence of a written warning or the locus of enforcement responsibility. Table 2: Number of Bans, Fine Specification, and Fine Amount According to Partisanship
Democrat
# of Bans
Republican 84
9
Specified Fine (%)
90.48
55.56
Average Maximum Fine
$331
$116.67
Summary The overwhelming majority of plastic bag bans in the United States specified fines as the form of enforcement. As previous literature has shown (Forster e t al ., 1996; DiFranza e t al., 1998; Jacob & Wasserman, 1999), enforcement has a profound influence on the actualization of policy and changes in public behavior. Therefore, this may indicate that these plastic bag bans will have a larger influence on public behavior than those that do not have any enforcement. Additionally, bans that have fines specified in the ordinance make it easier for retail establishments to educate themselves on what constitutes a violation, and the exact penalties that
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
17
result. It should be noted that some bans that included an enforcement clause did not explicitly state the amount of the fine, which makes it difficult for retail establishments to know how strict enforcement is for any infraction and potentially less likely to comply. Similarly, the majority of bans which specified some form of fine did not specify the locus of enforcement responsibility, which ties back to the Jacob & Wasserman (1999) tobacco policy study, which found that “failure to specify [enforcement] mechanisms in the legislation will lead to delays in implementing and enforcing the laws as well as to a number of compliance problems.” Written warnings often provide 1014 days for the retail establishment to comply with the policy, and therefore may allow retail establishments time to adjust to the policy before receiving a fine. This provides incentive to comply with the ban in a timely manner before experiencing the negative repercussions. The amount of fine likely influences public behavior and policy compliance as well. A higher fine amount i.e. $2,000 affects more retail establishments, including larger businesses. However, it may be argued that large fines disproportionately affect smaller businesses. For instance, a large supermarket such as Walmart or Kroger may view even a $250 fine as a mere inconvenience and may even lose less money continuing to distribute plastic bags instead of providing reusable bags. It would seem, then, that California has the most effective enforcement with a minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum of $5,000. This fine enforcement system affects the most businesses and, although there is no written warning in California, if retail establishments are made aware of the penalties for violating the state ban they will likely be more inclined to comply with the policy.
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
18
Conclusion: Future Research While this study provides a comprehensive framework for plastic bag ban enforcement in the U.S., there is still much research to be done on this topic. I focused on fines as the enforcement method for plastic bag bans and did not include mention of legal consequences in the ordinances if there was mention of fines used as penalty. Future research could include an assessment of legal consequences as a method of enforcement and attempt to identify any trends with this method of enforcement. Due to the time limitation of this research project, I did not include this assessment in my inventory. Further, as I have mentioned in my analysis, the trends I have identified in fine enforcement may have larger effects on public behavior and compliance. Future research could study whether stricter enforcement actually does affect compliance moreso than lighter or no enforcement. Additionally, future policy researchers may assess whether the fine enforcement is actually implemented in the bans where it is specified. My research may also be used as a framework for similar research on other environmental regulations such as waste water reduction, battery recycling, etc. Finally, while I was able to determine some relationships between demographic variables and fine specification, these relationships could be either confirmed or denied in future research using statistical regression. Takeaways for Policymakers Notwithstanding the limitations of this study, there are a number of lessons that policymakers may take away from this research. My research shows w hat the range of existing plastic bag policies and their enforcement are (range of fines, enforcement locus, etc.), as well as
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
19
trends in these variables when sorted demographically. The relationships I find between fine specification, fine amount, locus of enforcement responsibility and demographic variables shows that each of these variables are important to consider in drafting new policies. Overall, my inventory provides a comprehensive model for policymakers to institute plastic bag bans in their own jurisdictions, and should be taken into account going forward. Appendix A: Municipal Plastic Bag Bans, Sorted by Population Size (Excluding 12 Jurisdictions with No Census Population Estimates)
Name of Jurisdiction
Population Size
Fine Type
Written Warning?
Who Enforces?
Max Fine
MA Edgartown
681
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$100
MA Mashpee
774
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
TX Sunset Valley
821 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$500
NY East Hampton Village
1,148 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
MA Bourne
1,202
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
CO Crested Butte
1,445
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
MA Chatham
1,516
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Harwich
1,705
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Lee
1,773
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$200
CO Telluride
2,019
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
MA Great Barrington
2,344
Escalating
Yes
Police Department
$200
MA Dennis
2,551
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Provincetown
2,744
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$300
ME York
3,003
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
NY South Hampton Village
3,193 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
TX Laguna Vista
3,211 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not Specified
MA Falmouth
3,487
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
NY East Hampton Town
3,979 Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Board
NM Silver City
4,112 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$200 $1,000 $500
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
20
MA Ipswich
4,235
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager's designee
$100
MA W illiamstown
4,437
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
MD Chestertown
5,186
Escalating
No
Town Attorney
$200
CO Vail
5,321
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$300
AK Homer
5,324 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$50
MA Adams
5,475
Escalating
No
Inspection Services Department
ME Kennebunk
5,621 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Town Manager or designee
NY Larchmont
6,005
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
TX Kermit
6,057 Schedule Not Specified
No
City Manager or designee
N/A
AK Bethel
6,370
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
CO Carbondale
6,516
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$100
CO Aspen
6,740
Escalating
Yes
City Manager
$100
NY New Paltz
7,055
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
MA Plymouth
7,532
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$200
NY Hastings on the River
7,951
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
TX Fort Stockton
8,441
None
N/A
N/A
MA Bridgewater
8,516
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
WA Port Townsend
9,208 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
NY Patchogue
12,173 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$2,000
NY Rye
15,944
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
WA San Juan County
15,956 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not specified
MA Newburyport
17,766
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$500
WA Tumwater
18,478 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
Not specified
WA Ellensburg
18,637 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
Not specified
NY Mamaroneck
19,219
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
MA Amherst
19,543
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$250
MA Marblehead
20,270
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$50
OR Ashland
20,556
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Mukilteo
20,818
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Bainbridge Island
23,343 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
CT Westport
27,343
Continuing
Yes
Conservation Department
$150
MA Northampton
28,602
Escalating
Yes
Mayor's designee
$100
MA Wellesley
28,832
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$100
WA Issaquah
33,682 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$250
$200 Not Specified $150
N/A $300
$1,000
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
21
WA Edmonds
40,689
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$250
IA Marshall County
40,962
Escalating
No
County Attorney
$600
MA Barnstable
44,591
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
WA Lacey
44,825 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
Not specified
WA Olympia
48,941 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
Not specified
WA Shoreline
54,774
Continuing
No
City Customer Response Team
$250
OR Corvallis
54,981
Continuing
No
Not Specified
$200
MA Brookline
59,132
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
HI Kauai County
69,691
Escalating
No
County Engineer
$500
MA Framingham
70,443 Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Manager or designee
IL Evanston
75,603 Schedule Not Specified
No
Health Department/ Community Development Dept.
WA Bellingham
82,944
None
N/A
N/A
NM Santa Fe
83,008 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
City Manager
WA Kirkland
84,721
None
N/A
N/A
MA Newton
87,765
Escalating
Yes
Commissioner of Health and Services
$300
MA Cambridge
107,916 Schedule Not Specified
No
Commissioner of the Department of Public Works…(Appendix D)
$300
OR Eugene
159,615
N/A
N/A
HI Maui County
160,863 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
TX Brownsville
181,487
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
HI Hawaii County
191,482
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Tacoma
203,481
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
None
Not specified $150 N/A $100 N/A
N/A Not specified
$250
MN Minneapolis
399,950
None
N/A
Director of community planning and economic development...(Appendix D)
OR Portland
612,206
Escalating
Yes
Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
$500
WA Seattle
653,017
Continuing
No
Director of Seattle Public Utilities
$500
TX Austin
887,061
None
No
Not Specified
N/A
HI Honolulu County
984,178 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
N/A
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
22
Appendix B: Municipal Plastic Bag Bans, Sorted by Per Capita Income (Excluding 12 Jurisdictions with No Census PCI Estimates)
Name of Jurisdiction
Per Capita Income
Fine Type
Written Warning?
Who Enforces?
Max Fine
MA Amherst
$10,688
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
TX Brownsville
$14,489
None
N/A
N/A
NY New Paltz
$17,968
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
WA Ellensburg
$18,004 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
Not specified
MA Bridgewater
$19,659
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$300
NM Silver City
$20,437 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$500
TX Fort Stockton
$21,265
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
TX Kermit
$21,803 Schedule Not Specified
No
City Manager or designee
N/A
HI Hawaii County
$24,548
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
IA Marshall County
$24,648
Escalating
No
County Attorney
WA Bellingham
$25,496
None
N/A
N/A
OR Corvallis
$26,045
Continuing
No
Not Specified
$200
MD Chestertown
$26,133
Escalating
No
Town Attorney
$200
OR Eugene
$26,493
None
N/A
N/A
MA Lee
$26,632
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$200
MA Adams
$26,663
Escalating
No
Inspection Services Department
$200
MA W illiamstown
$26,790
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
WA Lacey
$26,909 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
WA Tacoma
$27,049
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$250
HI Kauai County
$27,441
Escalating
No
County Engineer
$500
$250 N/A
$600 N/A
N/A
Not specified
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
23
CO Carbondale
$28,561
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$100
AK Bethel
$28,758
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Port Townsend
$28,965 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
WA Tumwater
$28,989 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
Not specified
HI Maui County
$29,664 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not specified
WA Olympia
$30,008 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
Not specified
California
$30,318
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$5,000
OR Ashland
$30,389
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
AK Homer
$30,664 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$50
TX Laguna Vista
$30,759 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not specified
HI Honolulu County
$31,041 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
NM Santa Fe
$31,973 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
City Manager
$100
NY Patchogue
$32,621 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$2,000
N/A
MN Minneapolis
$32,647
None
N/A
Director of community planning and economic development…(Appendix D)
MA Great Barrington
$32,746
Escalating
Yes
Police Department
$200
MA Ipswich
$32,889
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager's designee
$100
OR Portland
$32,938
Escalating
Yes
Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
$500
CO Crested Butte
$33,029
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
TX Austin
$34,015
None
No
Not Specified
MA Plymouth
$34,080
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
MA Framingham
$34,371 Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Manager or designee
MA Harwich
$34,632
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
WA Shoreline
$34,715
Continuing
No
City Customer Response Team
$250
N/A $200 Not specified
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
24
MA Northampton
$35,102
Escalating
Yes
Mayor's designee
ME Kennebunk
$35,290 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Town Manager or designee
MA Barnstable
$36,825
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
MA Mashpee
$38,539
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
WA San Juan County
$39,266 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not specified
CO Telluride
$39,817
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
MA Falmouth
$40,469
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Bourne
$42,401
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
IL Evanston
$42,790 Schedule Not Specified
No
Health Department/Community Development Dept.
$150
MA Provincetown
$44,138
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$300
MA Edgartown
$44,422
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$100
WA Edmonds
$44,680
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$250
WA Mukilteo
$44,690
None
N/A
N/A
ME York
$45,607
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
WA Seattle
$45,673
Continuing
No
Director of Seattle Public Utilities
$500
MA Dennis
$46,051
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
NY East Hampton Town
$48,075 Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Board
WA Issaquah
$48,230 Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$250
MA Cambridge
$49,453 Schedule Not Specified
No
Commissioner of the Department of Public Works…(Appendix D)
$300
WA Kirkland
$50,403
None
N/A
N/A
MA Newburyport
$50,814
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$500
CO Vail
$54,760
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$300
$100 Not Specified
N/A
$1,000
N/A
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
25
NY Mamaroneck
$55,008
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
WA Bainbridge Island
$56,391 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
MA Marblehead
$57,397
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
MA Brookline
$59,400
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
MA Chatham
$59,583
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
TX Sunset Valley
$62,798 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$500
NY Hastings on the River
$63,877
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
MA Newton
$64,917
Escalating
Yes
Commissioner of Health and Services
$300
68,397
Escalating
Yes
City Manager
$100
NY South Hampton Village
$69,450 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
MA Wellesley
$73,816
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$100
NY Larchmont
$89,101
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
NY Rye
$90,548
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
CT Westport
$97,395
Continuing
Yes
Conservation Department
$150
$111,439 Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
CO Aspen
NY East Hampton Village
$50
$1,000
Appendix C: Municipal Plastic Bag Bans, Sorted by Public Assistance Income (Excluding 12 Jurisdictions with No Census PAI Estimates)
Name of Jurisdiction
Public Assistance Income
Fine Type
Written Warning?
Who Enforces?
TX Fort Stockton
0%
N/A
N/A
N/A
CO Carbondale
0%
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
TX Laguna Vista
0% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Max Fine
N/A $100 Not specified
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
26
CO Crested Butte
0%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
MA Edgartown
0%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$100
MA Dennis
0%
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
NY South Hampton Village
0% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
NY Larchmont
0%
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
MA Amherst
0.50%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$250
CO Telluride
0.60%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$300
CO Vail
0.80%
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$300
NY Hastings on the River
0.90%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
NY New Paltz
1.10%
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
TX Sunset Valley
1.10%
No
Not Specified
$500
CO Aspen
1.10%
Escalating
Yes
City Manager
$100
NY Mamaroneck
1.20%
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
CT Westport
1.20%
Continuing
Yes
Conservation Department
$150
NY East Hampton Town
1.30%
No
Town Board
MA Brookline
1.30%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
MA Chatham
1.40%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
TX Austin
1.50%
None
No
Not Specified
N/A
WA Bainbridge Island
1.50%
No
Not Specified
$1,000
MA Marblehead
1.50%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$50
MA Newton
1.50%
Escalating
Yes
Commissioner of Health and Services
$300
MA Wellesley
1.50%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$100
IL Evanston
1.60% Schedule Not Specified
No
Health Department/Community Development Dept.
$150
Schedule Not Specified
Schedule Not Specified $1,000
Schedule Not Specified
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
27
WA Mukilteo
1.60%
None
N/A
N/A
ME York
1.60%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
NY Rye
1.60%
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
MA Ipswich
1.70%
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager's designee
$100
NY East Hampton Village
1.70% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
MA Lee
1.80%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$200
WA Issaquah
1.90% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$250
NM Santa Fe
2% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
City Manager
$100
MA Barnstable
2%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
MA Falmouth
2%
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
OR Ashland
2.10%
None
N/A
N/A
ME Kennebunk
2.10% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Town Manager or designee
Not Specified
WA San Juan County
2.10% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
Not specified
MA Cambridge
2.10% Schedule Not Specified
No
Commissioner of the Department of Public Works…(Appendix D)
WA Kirkland
2.10%
None
N/A
N/A
WA Edmonds
2.30%
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$250
MA Bridgewater
2.60%
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$300
TX Kermit
2.60% Schedule Not Specified
N/A
City Manager or designee
N/A
MA Mashpee
2.60%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Provincetown
2.60%
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$300
WA Shoreline
2.70%
Continuing
No
City Customer Response Team
$250
MA Newburyport
2.80%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$500
TX Brownsville
2.90%
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
$1,000
N/A
$300 N/A
N/A
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
28
OR Corvallis
2.90%
Continuing
No
Not Specified
WA Tumwater
2.90% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
$200 Not specified
MA Harwich
3%
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
MA Northampton
3%
Escalating
Yes
Mayor's designee
$100
WA Seattle
3.00%
Continuing
No
Director of Seattle Public Utilities
$500
IA Marshall County
3.10%
Escalating
No
County Attorney
$600
WA Bellingham
3.20%
None
N/A
N/A
HI Maui County
3.20% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
MA Adams
3.30%
Escalating
No
Inspection Services Department
HI Honolulu County
3.30% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
MA Great Barrington
3.40%
Escalating
Yes
Police Department
$200
MA Plymouth
3.40%
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$200
MA Framingham
3.40% Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Manager or designee
OR Eugene
3.50%
None
N/A
N/A
MA W illiamstown
3.50%
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$200
MD Chestertown
3.60%
Escalating
No
Town Attorney
$200
NY Patchogue
3.60% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$2,000
WA Ellensburg
3.80% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
Not specified
WA Port Townsend
3.80% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000
California
3.90%
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$5,000
4%
Escalating
No
County Engineer
$500
OR Portland
4.20%
Escalating
Yes
Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
$500
MA Bourne
4.20%
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$200
HI Kauai County
N/A Not specified $200 $1,000
Not specified N/A
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
29
NM Silver City
4.30% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
WA Lacey
4.30% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
WA Tacoma
5.40%
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
HI Hawaii County
5.70%
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
AK Bethel
6.20%
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Olympia
6.40% Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
AK Homer
6.90% Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$50
N/A
Director of community planning and economic development…(Appendix D)
N/A
MN Minneapolis
7%
None
$500 Not specified $250
Not specified
Appendix D: Inventory of Plastic Bag Ban Fines and Enforcement
Name of Jurisdiction
Year Passed
Fine Type
Warning?
Who Enforces?
Min
Max
AK Bethel
2009
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
AK Homer
2012
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$50
$50
AK Hooper Bay
2009
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
California
2016
Escalating
No
Not Specified
CO Aspen
2011
Escalating
Yes
City Manager
$50
$100
CO Carbondale
2011
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$50
$100
CO Crested Butte
2016
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$50
$300
CO Telluride
2010
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$50
$300
CO Vail
2015
Escalating
No
Not Specified
$50
$300
CT Westport
2008
Continuing
Yes
Conservation Department
$150
$150
HI Hawaii County
2011
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HI Honolulu County
2012
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$100 $1,000
HI Kauai County
2009
Escalating
No
County Engineer
$100
$500
HI Maui County
2008
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
N/S*
N/S*
IA Marshall County
2008
Escalating
No
County Attorney
$100
$600
IL Evanston
2014
Schedule Not Specified
No
Health Department/Community Development Dept.
$150
$150
MA Adams
2016
Escalating
No
Inspection Services Department
$50
$200
MA Amherst
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$100
$250
$1,000 $5,000
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
30
MA Aquinnah
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$100
MA Barnstable
2015
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
$200
MA Bourne
2016
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Bridgewater
2016
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$100
$300
MA Brookline
2012
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$50
$100
MA Cambridge
2015
Schedule Not Specified
No
Commissioner of the Department of Public Works**
$300
$300
MA Chatham
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Chilmark
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$100
MA Concord
2015
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager or designee
$25
$50
MA Dennis
2016
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Edgartown
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$100
MA Falmouth
2014
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Framingham
2016
Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Manager or designee
N/S*
N/S*
MA Great Barrington
2013
Escalating
Yes
Police Department
$50
$200
MA Harwich
2015
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Ipswich
2016
Escalating
Yes
Town Manager's designee
$50
$100
MA Lee
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$50
$200
MA Manchester
2005
Escalating
No
Police Department
$50
$200
MA Marblehead
2014
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health or designee
$25
$50
MA Mashpee
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Newburyport
2014
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
$500
MA Newton
2015
Escalating
Yes
Commissioner of Health and Services
$100
$300
MA Northampton
2015
Escalating
Yes
Mayor's designee
$50
$100
MA Plymouth
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$50
$200
MA Provincetown
2014
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$100
$300
MA Shrewsbury
2016
Escalating
Yes
Director of Public Health Services***
$50
$100
MA Tisbury
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$100
MA Truro
2015
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA Wellesley
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health
$50
$100
MA Wellfleet
2015
Escalating
No
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$200
MA West Tisbury
2016
Escalating
Yes
Board of Health/Police Department
$50
$100
MA W illiamstown
2015
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$50
$200
MD Chestertown
2011
Escalating
No
Town Attorney
$100
$200
ME Kennebunk
2016
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Town Manager or designee
N/S*
N/S*
ME York
2015
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$50
$100
MN Minneapolis
2016
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
31
NM Santa Fe
2013
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
City Manager
$100
$100
NM Silver City
2014
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$100
$500
NY East Hampton Town
2014
Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Board
$1,000 $1,000
NY East Hampton Village
2011
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$1,000 $1,000
NY Hastings on the River
2014
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$100
$200
NY Larchmont
2013
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
$150
NY Mamaroneck
2012
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
$150
NY New Castle
2016
Escalating
Yes
Not Specified
$150
$250
NY New Paltz
2014
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
$150
NY Patchogue
2015
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$0
$2,000
NY Rye
2011
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$150
$150
NY South Hampton Town
2014
Schedule Not Specified
No
Town Board
$0
$1,000
NY South Hampton Village
2011
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$0
$1,000
OR Ashland
2014
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OR Corvallis
2012
Continuing
No
Not Specified
$200
$200
OR Eugene
2012
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
OR Portland
2010
Escalating
Yes
Director of the Bureau of Planning and Sustainability
$100
$500
RI Barrington
2012
Escalating
Yes
Police Department
$150
$300
TX Austin
2012
None
No
Not Specified
N/A
N/A
TX Brownsville
2010
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TX Fort Stockton
2010
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
TX Kermit
2013
Schedule Not Specified
No
City Manager or designee
N/S*
N/A
TX Laguna Vista
2012
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
N/S*
N/S*
TX Sunset Valley
2013
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$500
$500
WA Bainbridge Island
2012
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$250 $1,000
WA Bellingham
2011
None
N/A
N/A
WA Edmonds
2009
Escalating
No
WA Ellensburg
2016
Schedule Not Specified
WA Issaquah
2013
WA Kirkland
N/A
N/A
Not Specified
$100
$250
Yes
Not Specified
N/S*
N/S*
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Not Specified
$250
$250
2015
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Lacey
2014
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
N/S*
N/S*
WA Mukilteo
2011
None
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA Olympia
2013
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
N/S*
N/S*
WA Port Townsend
2012
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
$250 $1,000
WA San Juan County
2016
Schedule Not Specified
No
Not Specified
N/S*
N/S*
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
32
WA Seattle
2011
Continuing
No
Director of Seattle Public Utilities
$500
$500
WA Shoreline
2016
Continuing
No
City Customer Response Team
$250
$250
WA Tacoma
2016
Continuing
Yes
Not Specified
$250
$250
WA Tumwater
2013
Schedule Not Specified
Yes
Thurston County Environmental Health Department
N/S*
N/S*
*N/S = Fine amount not specified. **Commissioner of the Department of Public Works, the Executive Director of the License Commission, the Executive Director of Inspectional Services Department and the Commissioner of the Health Commission, or their designees. ***Director of Public Health Services or Town Manager/Board of Selectmen designee.
References "Bag Laws The Resource for Retail Packaging Legislation." B ag Laws The Resource for Retail Packaging Legislation . S. Walter Packaging, 2016. Retrieved April 2, 2017, from http://www.baglaws.com/ Bell, J., Huber, J., & Viscusi, W. K. (2012). Alternative Policies to Increase Recycling of Plastic Water Bottles in the United States. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 6 (2), 190211. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1724889 California (State). Legislature. Senate. Bill No. 270. Chapter 850. Solid waste: singleuse carryout bags, 2014. Legislative Counsel’s Digest. Retrieved April 7, 2017, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB270 Clapp, J., & Swanston, L. (2009). Doing away with plastic shopping bags: international patterns of norm emergence and policy implementation. Environmental Politics, 18 (3), 315332. doi:10.1080/09644010902823717 Encouraging State and local governments to establish plastic bag recycling programs, H.R. 1506, 111th Cong. (2010). Retrieved from h ttps://www.govtrack.us Frost, R. (2017, February 08). How Green is Your State? Constructing a modern state environmental index . Lecture presented at Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy in Gerald Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Krishnakumar, P., Emamdjomeh, A., & Moore, M. (2016, October 31). After decades of Republican victories, here’s how California became a blue state again. L os Angeles Times . Retrieved March 02, 2017, from http://www.latimes.com/projects/lapolcacaliforniavotinghistory/ Le Guern Lytle, C. (2009, November). Plastic Pollution. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from http://coastalcare.org/2009/11/plasticpollution/ [Last updated January 2017].
Plastic Bag Policy Enforcement in the U.S.
33
Njeru, J. (2006). The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum, 37 (6), 10461058. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.03.003 Plastic Bag Bans and Fees. (Last updated 2015). S urfRider Foundation. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from http://www.surfrider.org/pages/plasticbagbansfees Plastic Bag Reduction Act of 2009, H.R. 2091, 111th Cong. (2009). Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us Presidential general election returns by county, national summary. C Q Press U.S. political stats (Web site) . Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved April 19, 2017, from http://library.cqpress.com/uspoliticalstats/101451 Roach, J. (2003, September 2). Are Plastic Grocery Bags Sacking the Environment? N ational Geographic Retrieved February 20, 2017, from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags.html Romer, J. (2014). Plasticbaglaws.org | A resource for legislative bodies considering laws limiting the use of plastic bags. Retrieved April 23, 2017, from http://plasticbaglaws.org/legislation/statelaws/ Schultz, J., & Tyrrell, K. (2016, November 11). State Plastic and Paper Bag Legislation. N ational Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved March 18, 2017, from http://www.ncsl.org/research/environmentandnaturalresources/plasticbaglegislation.a spx U.S. Census Bureau. “ACS 2015 (5Year Estimates).” Table. Social Explorer. Retrieved April 13, 2017 20:41:34 EST, from http://www.socialexplorer.com/explore/tables World Health Organization (WHO). (2010). Social and gender inequalities in environment and health. E nvironment and health risks: a review on the influence and effects of social inequalities, 119. Retrieved April 21, 2017, from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/76519/Parma_EH_Conf_pb1.pdf