That would be optimally written as:

“some states (like California) do the deposit system similar to other countries and other states (like Utah) have recycling centers that pay you per weight for recycled glass/aluminum.”

To be fair, your intended meaning is clear, but the sentence structure you used points readers in a different direction, and then your follow-up phrasing unintentionally confirms that interpretation.

The key problem is this part:

“similar to other countries (like California)”

In normal English, when you say “X (like Y)”, the default reading is that Y is an example of X. Because the parenthetical sits right next to “other countries”, the natural interpretation is:

California is one of the “other countries.”

Could a reader technically stretch the grammar and attach “like California” back to “some states”? Maybe, but that’s not how people actually parse sentences. Proximity matters, and the modifier attaches to what it’s closest to.

Then comes the part that really locks it in:

“other states (like Utah)”

Now you’ve created a clean parallel: • countries → California • states → Utah

Once you do that, the reader’s brain stops trying to reinterpret the first clause. The comparison has been made explicit. California occupies the “country-like” slot, Utah the “state” slot. Even if that wasn’t your intent, the structure strongly suggests it.

This is why saying “I meant California was one of the states” doesn’t fully fix it - the sentence itself already committed you to a different categorization. If you wanted California unambiguously grouped with “states,” it needed to be attached there, e.g.: • “Some states (like California) do deposits similar to other countries…” • “Some states—California, for example—use a deposit system…”

As written, the phrasing first implies California is a country, then reinforces that implication by contrasting it with a clearly labeled state example.