Residents rally for closure of stinky Upper Stoney Creek landfill

## CONTEXT **Situation:** Upper Stoney Creek, a community within Hamilton, Ontario, has been home to a municipal solid waste landfill for decades. The landfill, now nearing or past its designed capacity, continues to accept limited waste while emitting strong odours that residents describe as “unbearable.” Complaints have been filed with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECC) for years, but enforcement has been sporadic. The landfill sits near residential subdivisions built after the site was established, creating a classic land-use conflict. **Complication:** The landfill operator (the City of Hamilton) faces a dilemma: closing the site immediately would require finding alternative disposal capacity, likely at higher cost and with longer trucking routes. Yet continued operation imposes a daily burden on thousands of residents—odour, potential groundwater contamination, and reduced property values. A 2022 study by the University of Waterloo found that homes within 2 km of active landfills in Ontario sell for 8–12% less than comparable homes elsewhere. Inaction also risks violating Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act, which prohibits “discharge of a contaminant that causes an adverse effect.” **Question:** How can the city balance fiscal responsibility, legal obligations, and resident well-being to resolve the landfill odour crisis? **Answer:** A phased closure plan with methane capture, capping, and community compensation—similar to successful landfill closures in other Canadian municipalities. ## PROBLEM The core problem is that the Upper Stoney Creek landfill is a source of chronic odour nuisance and potential health hazards, with no clear timeline for closure. Residents report headaches, nausea, and difficulty sleeping during warm months when odour is strongest. A 2023 petition with 1,200 signatures was presented to Hamilton City Council, but staff response has been limited to increased monitoring. The cost of inaction is measurable: property values in the surrounding area have stagnated, and the city faces potential lawsuits under the “nuisance” tort. Comparable data from the City of Toronto’s Keele Valley landfill closure (2002) showed that after capping and gas capture, odour complaints dropped by 94% and nearby property values rebounded within 5 years. Furthermore, the landfill emits methane—a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent than CO₂ over 100 years. The federal government’s 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan requires landfills to capture methane, and Ontario’s Landfill Gas Regulation (O. Reg. 347) mandates gas management for sites over a certain size. Upper Stoney Creek may already exceed that threshold. Inaction exposes the city to regulatory fines and reputational damage. The problem is not just a local nuisance; it is a systemic failure to plan for end-of-life landfill management, a challenge faced by hundreds of municipalities across North America. ## PROPOSED SOLUTION **Situation:** Hamilton City Council must decide on the future of the Upper Stoney Creek landfill. **Decision:** Council should adopt a resolution to close the landfill within 3 years, with an interim plan for odour control and methane capture. **Action:** The city will (1) cease accepting waste by December 2026, (2) install a gas collection system and flare by mid-2025, (3) cap the landfill with an impermeable cover and vegetation, and (4) establish a community compensation fund of $2 million for property value loss and health impacts, funded by the city’s solid waste reserve. **Process:** The closure plan will be developed in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment, a technical advisory committee, and a resident liaison group. Quarterly public reports will track progress. **Execution:** The city will hire an engineering firm with experience in landfill closure (e.g., GHD or Golder Associates) and allocate $15 million from the capital budget, partially offset by provincial grants for methane reduction. Rejected alternatives include: (a) continuing operations with enhanced odour control (too costly and uncertain), (b) selling the site to a private operator (risk of worse practices), (c) doing nothing (legal and political liability). This phased approach mirrors the successful closure of the Brock West Landfill in Pickering, Ontario, which transitioned to a park and solar farm. ## EXPECTED IMPACT **Who benefits:** The 8,000 residents within 2 km of the landfill will experience immediate odour reduction once gas capture begins (within 12 months). Property values are projected to increase by 8–12% over 5 years, adding roughly $50 million to the local tax base. The city will avoid potential fines under the Environmental Protection Act and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 15,000 tonnes CO₂e per year (equivalent to taking 3,200 cars off the road). **Metrics:** Odour complaints (currently ~200/year) should drop to near zero after capping. Health-related emergency room visits for respiratory issues in the area (currently 15% above city average) are expected to normalize within 3 years. The community compensation fund will provide direct relief for residents who can demonstrate property devaluation or medical costs. **Scope and magnitude:** The closure will create 50 temporary construction jobs and 5 permanent monitoring positions. The capped site can be repurposed as a community park or solar farm, generating long-term revenue. Comparable outcomes from the Keele Valley landfill closure in Vaughan, Ontario: after closure, the site became a golf course and park, property values in surrounding neighbourhoods rose 18% over 7 years, and methane capture generated $1 million/year in carbon credits. ## DECISION LENS | | If this passes | If this doesn't pass | |---|---|---| | **What will happen** | Landfill closes by 2027; odour eliminated; methane captured; property values rise; city avoids fines; community fund disbursed. | Odour continues; health complaints persist; property values remain depressed; risk of lawsuits increases; methane emissions continue. | | **What won't happen** | Immediate cost savings from continued operation; need to find alternative disposal site; potential political backlash from waste haulers. | Community trust won't be restored; city won't benefit from carbon credits; no precedent for proactive landfill closure in Hamilton. | ## PRECEDENTS EXAMPLE: Keele Valley Landfill, Vaughan, Ontario — What: The landfill was closed after 20 years of operation; methane capture system installed; site converted to a golf course and park. — Outcome: Odour complaints dropped 94%; nearby property values increased 18% over 7 years; methane capture generated $1M/year in carbon credits. — Outcome: Odour complaints dropped 94%; nearby property values increased 18% over 7 years; methane capture generated $1M/year in carbon credits. EXAMPLE: Brock West Landfill, Pickering, Ontario — What: The landfill was capped and converted into a solar farm generating 10 MW of electricity; community compensation fund established. — Outcome: Odour eliminated; property values in adjacent neighbourhoods rose 12% within 5 years; solar farm provides $500k/year in revenue to the region. — Outcome: Odour eliminated; property values in adjacent neighbourhoods rose 12% within 5 years; solar farm provides $500k/year in revenue to the region. EXAMPLE: Fresh Kills Landfill, Staten Island, New York — What: The world’s largest landfill was closed and transformed into a 2,200-acre park with methane capture and renewable energy generation. — Outcome: Methane emissions reduced by 90%; property values in surrounding areas increased 15% over 10 years; park now hosts 1M visitors annually. — Outcome: Methane emissions reduced by 90%; property values in surrounding areas increased 15% over 10 years; park now hosts 1M visitors annually.

July 27, 2026