City of Ottawa considering buying the Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre on Boundary Road near Highway 417 near Carlsbad Springs.

CJRO Radio News - Nouvelles
Nov 13
5 min read

The City of Ottawa is participating in a bidding process, (Source: according to City documents), to be introduced to councillors at a special committee meeting on November 21. City staff indicated buying a landfill rather than building one would be more economical in the long term.

Numerous community members in the south-east rural Ottawa are concerned about this latest update and plan by the City to acquire a site that is currently own by Taggart-Miller. The CRRRC had a long complicated and controversial approval process that required numerous studies and community meetings, that took over 10 years, and caused a lot of frustration and anger with many residents and community leaders. Two groups (Dump this Dump 1 and Dump this Dump 2) Dump This Dump 2 Represents Citizen Advocates Against Expanding Landfills in Ottawa - Ottawa Life Magazine that opposed the facility were created over the years. These two groups are currently not active.

Now the City wants to take over this site as it is already pre-approved by the Province to become a waste facility due to the environmental approvals that it already obtained over the years.

One of many community meetings that took place at the Carlsbad Springs Community Centre:

More information on the proposed CRRRC facility: Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre (CRRRC)

CRRRC releases annual compliance report

Key Facts

Ottawa’s main landfill site, the Trail Road Landfill, is projected to reach capacity within about a decade, prompting the city to investigate long-term alternatives.
One of the leading options: the city is considering purchasing a large privately-operated landfill in the east end (the “Capital Region Resource Recovery Centre” on Boundary Road near Highway 417). Buying it would give the city more direct control and possibly reduce costs/risks compared to building new.
Other options under review:
1. Continue to use the Trail Road Landfill until full, then contract out to private landfills for disposal.
2. Build a new municipal landfill from scratch (with full approvals).
3. Build a waste-to-energy / incineration facility as a path beyond landfill.

Why This Matters

Landfill capacity is a major concern: Ontario has few remaining large disposal sites and approvals for new ones are difficult and time-consuming. Owning a site reduces uncertainty and gives more control over costs and operations.
If Ottawa relies solely on privately-owned landfills, it may face higher or unpredictable tipping fees, less long-term control over capacity, and vulnerability to market changes.
The decision will affect future infrastructure investments, environmental implications (e.g., emissions, transport of waste), and ultimately cost to taxpayers.

What’s Next & Timeline

City staff will present detailed recommendations for council review (including finance committee then full council). The option to purchase the east-end private landfill is still in bidding/negotiation.
A more comprehensive staff report on the three long-term alternatives is expected in the next term of city leadership (circa 2027) to allow enough time for planning, budgeting and community consultation.
Until a decision is made, the city must plan for declining capacity at Trail Road and maintain one or more interim solutions.

Implications & Trade-offs

Purchasing a landfill: Offers speed (since the site is already permitted), greater control, and potentially lower cost long-term — but requires upfront capital and assumes the site meets all environmental/social acceptability standards.
Building new: Provides the greatest control and design flexibility, but is the most expensive, takes the most time, and faces regulatory/community challenges.
Contracting private facilities: Lower upfront cost for the city, but less control, more exposure to future cost increases or capacity limits, and possibly less strategic flexibility.
Environmental/transport issues also matter: disposal sites further away increase transport costs/emissions; incineration has its own controversies and capital risk.

Capacity / Timeline Projections

The Trail Road Landfill (TWF) — within its current approved capacity of ~16.9 million m³ — is estimated to reach full capacity around 2034–2035 under current disposal and diversion levels.
With existing short-term expansion within the same site bounds (target additional ~5.5 million m³ over 15 years), the target is to extend its operating life to around 2048.
If a new landfill or alternative disposal (private site, waste-to-energy etc) isn’t in place in time, the city risks running out of municipal landfill capacity within the next decade.
According to one summary, a new landfill or incinerator would take many years to site, approve and build — meaning action is required now if lifetime beyond the mid-2030s is to be guaranteed.

Cost Estimates

For building a brand new municipal landfill as one of the long-term options, the capital cost is estimated at roughly CAD $439 million to $761 million.
For a waste-to-energy (incineration) facility sized to serve the city, cost estimates are in the order of ~$500 million or more.
There are no disclosed specific dollar-figure for the proposed purchase of the private east-end landfill site, as it is under bidding/negotiation and thus the city is withholding some details.
Operational/annual cost pressures: if a new landfill is built, the city would have to add $15.6 million annually in capital-expenditure related charges.

Community / Policy Implications

Owning a landfill gives the city more control over tipping fees, capacity, and long-term disposal cost, rather than being simply a customer of privately-owned sites.
Private landfill disposal (or third-party sites) may reduce upfront capital cost but will carry risk of future cost increases, less control over operations, and greater vulnerability.
The fact that Ottawa has time (to roughly 2034) means the city can in theory ramp up diversion (recycling, organics, etc) to reduce pressure on the landfill — but this will require investment and program changes (e.g., stronger diversion programs, user‐pay incentives).
There is also a social/community dimension: newly‐sited landfills, incinerators, or expansions often face local opposition (zoning, environmental concerns, transportation of waste, GHG emissions). The timeline to do so is long and uncertain.
For the Trail Road site, restricting commercial waste and adopting a 3-item or even 2-item garbage limit, and diversion of organics could extend the life of the site.

Key Trade-offs to Watch

Upfront cost vs long-term risk: Building or buying means large capital outlay now, but potentially lower long-term cost and risk. Contracting out means lower up-front cost but more exposure to future cost escalation.
Time to implementation: Building new infrastructure (landfill, waste-to‐energy) takes many years of siting, approvals, construction. Buying an existing permitted site could shorten the timeline significantly.
Environmental/diversion strategy: The more waste that is diverted (via recycling, organics, etc), the less pressure on disposal capacity and the lower the cost of alternative disposal infrastructure.
Community acceptability & regulatory risk: New landfill/energy‐to‐waste sites often face pushback, regulatory scrutiny, transport/traffic concerns, and GHG/air emission implications.
Lifetime of asset: Extending the life of Trail Road (or another owned site) gives more flexibility and security for the city into 2040s/2050s; failing to do so may force more expensive or urgent decisions later.