The problem
Cities clean it up. Codes try to punish it. Cameras try to catch it. None of it addresses the moment of friction where the dumping actually happens.
There's no single national database of illegal dumping costs, the data lives in scattered municipal budgets and EPA reports, but the rough scale is clear. U.S. cities and counties spend an estimated $300 million or more per year cleaning up illegal dump sites. The per-incident cost ranges from $600 to $1,500 depending on volume, location, and contamination.
Those numbers don't capture the indirect costs: property value depreciation in affected neighborhoods, code enforcement labor, environmental remediation when dumping includes hazardous materials, and the public health costs of vector-borne pests that breed in standing dumped material.
Illegal dumping is geographically concentrated. Across multiple municipal studies, the same pattern shows up: dump sites cluster in a 1-mile radius around multi-family low-income housing, commercial alleys, and vacant lots. The temporal pattern is just as clear, volume spikes during the first and last week of the month, when leases turn over.
The pattern
68% of illegal dumping incidents occur within one mile of multi-family housing during move-out windows. That's not a behavior pattern. That's a logistics pattern.
Surveillance. Cameras at known dump sites move the dumping somewhere else. They don't reduce total volume; they redistribute it. Several cities have published data showing this displacement effect, with no net incident reduction.
Fines and enforcement. Code citations require identifying the dumper, which happens in a tiny fraction of incidents. Even when a citation is issued, collection rates are low and the citation rarely changes future behavior because it doesn't address the underlying friction.
Public service announcements. “Don't dump” campaigns assume the dumper has a viable alternative they're choosing not to use. For most multi-family low-income households, the alternative, renting a truck, finding a transfer station, paying tipping fees, doesn't exist.
Bulk pickup days. Cities that offer scheduled bulk pickup see meaningful incident reduction, but the program is usually capped (one pickup per household per year), seasonal, and underutilized in exactly the geographies that need it most because of awareness gaps.
Every approach above is demand-side: trying to discourage, monitor, or redirect the dumper. The supply-side approach is simpler: make removal accessible at the moment the household needs it. If a free or near-free pickup is available the same week the resident is moving out, the dumping doesn't happen.
This isn't hypothetical. It's how comparable problems get solved when the supply side is properly resourced. Needle exchange programs reduced public discarding by making safe disposal accessible. Curbside recycling reduced landfill volume by removing the friction of separate disposal. The pattern is consistent: friction is the failure, and supply-side intervention fixes it.
Freemoval is the supply-side hypothesis for illegal dumping. The thesis is: in geographies where Freemoval makes free hauling available to eligible households during move-out windows, illegal dumping incidents in the surrounding 1-mile radius will decline measurably within 90 to 180 days.
If the data supports the hypothesis, the program scales. If it doesn't, we publish the null result and update the model. This is what we mean when we say transparency is the only currency that matters, the dashboard, the methodology, and the impact research are all public, including the parts that don't look good.
We're happy to share data, methodology, and on-the-record briefings with journalists, academics, and policy researchers.
For press & researchers