Making Every Cubic Metre Count: Rethinking Waste in North Dundas
Updated: Aug 27
What if one of the easiest ways to extend the life of our landfill isn't building another landfill, but putting less waste into the one we already have?
Landfills are one of those pieces of municipal infrastructure that we don't think about very often — until we have to.
North Dundas has operated the Boyne Road Landfill since 1965. The landfill reached its originally approved capacity of 395,000 cubic metres in 2014, and the Township has since undertaken a significant Environmental Assessment to determine how we should manage our waste for the future.
That process was approved by the Province in 2024. The approved plan provides approximately 417,700 cubic metres of additional disposal capacity, with a planning horizon extending to 2048. The Township's Environmental Assessment considered a number of alternatives, including exporting waste, developing a new landfill, alternative waste-management technologies, enhanced waste diversion and expanding the existing landfill. Ultimately, increased diversion combined with expansion of the existing Boyne Road site was selected as the preferred approach.
That's an important investment in our community — and I believe we should be asking how we can make that investment last as long as possible.
Landfill space is infrastructure
We often talk about roads, bridges, water systems and buildings when we talk about infrastructure.
But landfill capacity is infrastructure too.
Every cubic metre of space we use today is a cubic metre that isn't available tomorrow. And when that capacity is gone, the municipality has to find another solution — whether that means expanding the existing site, developing a new facility, transporting waste somewhere else or investing in another form of waste management.
Those options can be expensive.
That's why I think we should approach landfill management the same way we approach other municipal infrastructure: maintain what we have, use it efficiently, plan ahead and look for ways to reduce the pressure on the system.
What can other communities teach us?
North Dundas isn't the only municipality asking these questions.
The Town of St. Marys, for example, recently completed an extensive Environmental Assessment looking at its future waste-disposal needs. The process considered several alternatives, including enhanced waste diversion, energy-from-waste, exporting waste, developing a new landfill and expanding the existing landfill. The Town ultimately received approval to expand its landfill, but the study provides a useful example of how a smaller Ontario municipality can examine multiple options before making a long-term decision.
The Green Lane Landfill in the Township of Southwold provides another interesting example. Its Environmental Assessment looked at ways to increase landfill capacity within the existing property boundaries, including changes to the landfill's footprint, depth and elevation. The optimization was expected to provide approximately 15 additional years of capacity, depending on waste volumes and operational practices. The Environmental Assessment also specifically examined opportunities to increase waste diversion.
And just down the road, Ottawa is taking a similar approach with the Trail Waste Facility. Ottawa's current planning estimates that its landfill could reach capacity around 2034–35 if current disposal habits continue. Its recently approved Solid Waste Master Plan includes dozens of actions designed to reduce waste, increase diversion and recover resources, with the goal of diverting almost one million tonnes of waste from the landfill and extending its life by approximately 14 years.
Perhaps most interestingly, Ottawa is also looking at ways to optimize its existing landfill. Its current Environmental Assessment is examining a potential expansion within the existing property boundaries, while the city considers longer-term alternatives for dealing with residual waste.
What about North Dundas?
I think there is an opportunity to take some of these ideas and ask what makes sense for a rural municipality like ours.
We don't need to copy Ottawa. We don't need to build an expensive waste-to-energy facility. And we shouldn't pursue a solution simply because another municipality is doing it.
But we should be willing to investigate the options.
For example:
Can we divert more organic waste?
Food and yard waste can make up a significant portion of the municipal waste stream. Composting and other forms of organics processing can keep that material out of the landfill while producing a useful end product. The federal government identifies organics diversion as one of the most effective ways to reduce the amount of municipal waste going to landfill.
Can we do more with construction and demolition waste?
Materials such as wood, metal and other building materials don't necessarily need to end up in a landfill. Creating better opportunities for reuse and recycling could reduce the amount of valuable landfill space being consumed.
Can we improve our recycling and reuse programs?
The federal government's guidance for small and remote communities recommends a continuous-improvement approach: understand the local waste stream, identify priorities, evaluate options, implement them, measure the results and adjust over time.
Can we make better use of the landfill itself?
There are engineering and operational techniques that can improve how efficiently landfill capacity is used. Ottawa's past landfill optimization work, for example, examined increasing landfill height, increasing the footprint and even landfill reclamation or "mining" as potential ways of extending landfill life.
These aren't necessarily the right solutions for Boyne Road — but they are the kinds of questions worth asking.
The economics matter too
This isn't just an environmental issue.
It's a financial issue.
If we can spend $1 today on a diversion program that saves $2 in future landfill, transportation or infrastructure costs, that deserves serious consideration.
Likewise, if a particular program costs significantly more than the value it provides, we should be honest about that too.
That's why I would like to see North Dundas develop a long-term waste strategy based on measurable results.
We should know:
How much waste are we currently sending to Boyne Road?
What does that waste consist of?
How much could realistically be diverted?
What would each diversion program cost?
How many years of landfill life could each option potentially add?
What would it cost to transport waste elsewhere?
What would future landfill expansion cost?
What emerging technologies might make sense for a municipality our size?
And most importantly, what option provides the best value for North Dundas taxpayers?
The answers don't have to be the same as Ottawa, St. Marys or any other municipality.
But we should learn from what they're doing.
Looking beyond 2048
The approved North Dundas plan gives us additional landfill capacity through a planning horizon of 2048.
That might sound like a long way away.
It isn't.
Municipal infrastructure decisions routinely take years to plan, approve, finance and build. If we wait until the landfill is approaching capacity before asking what comes next, we'll have fewer options and potentially higher costs.
I'd rather see us start asking those questions now.
The goal shouldn't simply be to find somewhere to put our garbage.
The goal should be to reduce the amount of garbage we produce, recover what we can, maximize the infrastructure we already have, and make thoughtful decisions about what comes next.
For me, that's what responsible infrastructure planning looks like.
Let's make every cubic metre count.
Comments