Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science

Design Project Report

Options for Reducing Wastewater Load in Small Saskatchewan

Municipalities

Members

Taylor Armstrong

Ashley Mathew

Internal Supervisor

Dr. Stephanie Young

External Supervisor

Aura Lee MacPherson

Executive Summary

Due to flooding in the early spring, the lagoon in Lebret, Saskatchewan, is near capacity

year-round and is forced to discharge into nearby waterways as often as three times per year.

This effluent has an adverse effect on lakes and large water bodies across Saskatchewan, causing

high phosphate and nitrate content, and leading to foam and algae build-up around shorelines.

This project takes a deeper look at the influent of the lagoon located in Lebret, and outlines

passive ways in which residents can help reduce the wastewater load. In turn, this will help

reduce the number of discharges that occur, and protect the surrounding lakes from these adverse

effects.

1

Table of Contents

1. Introduction & Project Motivation………………………………………………………… 3

2.  Background Information and Literature Review…………………………………………. 4

3.  Objectives……………………………………………………………………………….... 7

4. Methodology………………………………………………………………………………. 7

4.1 Primary Plan…………………………………………………………………………. 8

4.2 Secondary Plan………………………………………………………………….…… 9

4.3 Tertiary Plan………………………………………………………………………… 10

5. Results and Discussion……………………………………………………………..……. 10

5.1 Primary Plan…………………………………………………………………….….. 10

5.1.1 Tree irrigation……………………………………………………………….... 10

5.1.2 Low Flush Toilets…………………………………………………………….. 12

5.2 Secondary Plan……………………………………………………………………… 16

5.2.1 Rainwater Collection…………………………………………………………. 16

5.2.2 Grey Water Recycling………………………………………………………... 17

5.3 Tertiary Plan………………………………………………………………………... 18

6. Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………………………. 22

7. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………...…… 23

8. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….… 24

9. References………………………………………………………………………………... 25

10. Appendix………………………………………………………………………….…….. 27

2

1. Introduction & Project Motivation

There are approximately 91 municipal wastewater treatment plants in Saskatchewan that

discharge treated effluent into natural waterways, such as creeks and rivers. Approximately 98%

of these systems utilize lagoons as their treatment method. Due to flooding in the early spring

and high water usage, many of these lagoons are at, or near, capacity year-round and are forced

to discharge into nearby waterways numerous times per year. This effluent has an adverse effect

on lakes and large water bodies across Saskatchewan, causing high phosphate and nitrate

contents, and leading to foam and algae build-up around shorelines. This poor water quality

keeps residents from entering the lake at certain times of the year due to safety concerns.

This project focuses on the wastewater load issues in Lebret, Saskatchewan. The Lebret

lagoon currently utilizes a two-cell facultative lagoon that is sitting near capacity, and has been

forced to discharge into nearby waterways five times since 2011. This discharge effluent

typically consists of wastewater high in nitrates and phosphates, and ends up in Lake Katepwa.

This lake is commonly used by the residents of Camp Monahan, Katepwa Baptist Camp, a

provincial park, and just under 600 lakefront cottages (MacPherson, 2016).  It is very important

to ensure that the lake is safe for these residents; safety can be increased by reducing the amount

of discharges that occur from the Lebret lagoon.

This project provides a plan to reduce the wastewater load issues within the village of

Lebret, Saskatchewan. Analysis and calculations are based on the population living within this

town alone. However, this population represents only a portion of the total residents who are

contributing to the Lebret lagoon. Star Blanket First Nation and many lakefront cottages

contribute to this lagoon as well. This is a generalized design that can be applied to other similar

3

municipalities in Saskatchewan that utilize a two-cell facultative lagoon for wastewater

treatment.

2.  Background Information and Literature Review

The town of Lebret currently uses a two-cell facultative lagoon to treat their wastewater

(Turner, 2016). A facultative lagoon is a type of stabilization pond that biologically treats

wastewater in three main ways:

The first way is via microbial breakdown of waste: organic matter is broken down by

bacteria present in the wastewater (WSA, 2004). There are three types of bacteria that work in

this process: aerobic, anaerobic and facultative bacteria (WSA, 2004). Aerobic bacteria need

dissolved oxygen to live and grow, and are therefore found in the upper portions of the lagoon

(WSA, 2004). Anaerobic bacteria are found in the deeper, bottom portions of the lagoon since

there is no dissolved oxygen in this area (WSA, 2004). Facultative bacteria grow with or without

the presence of dissolved oxygen, and can be found in the middle regions of the lagoon (WSA,

2004). These types of bacteria are more active and most efficient in warmer temperatures

opposed to colder conditions. This means that the water in the lagoon cells are treated more

efficiently in the spring and summer months compared to the freezing temperatures of the winter

months (WSA, 2004).

The second way that a facultative lagoon biologically treats wastewater is via wind action

on the surface of the lagoon cells (Turner, 2016). Wind provides surface water mixing and helps

add air and oxygen into the wastewater (WSA, 2004).  Oxygen must be provided for the aerobic

bacteria to live and metabolize. Therefore, wind action helps speed up the microbial action of the

aerobic bacteria within the lagoon cells, ultimately aiding in the overall treatment of the

wastewater (WSA, 2004). Lastly, sunlight plays an important role in the wastewater treatment

4

within facultative lagoons as well (Turner, 2016). Sunlight is utilized as an energy source by

bacteria and other microbes to convert carbon dioxide and nutrients into new cell growth and

produce oxygen (WSA, 2004). This helps speed up the wastewater treatment process by

improving microbial action (Turner, 2016).

The first cell of the two-cell facultative lagoon acts as the primary treatment cell (WSA,

2004). This is where the bulk of the treatment occurs. The heavy solids sink to the bottom of the

cell and the lighter solids float to the top (WSA, 2004).  Anaerobic organisms colonize at the

bottom to help breakdown the sludge (WSA, 2004). In order to prevent surface anaerobic

activity, the surface area of the cell must be maximized to allow for a high rate of oxygen

exchange (WSA, 2004). The second cell is referred to as the holding cell (WSA, 2004). This cell

contains more aerobic bacteria and less anaerobic bacteria, since there is less organic material in

this cell (WSA, 2004). The capacity of the holding cell is based on a minimum 180-day retention

period (WSA, 2004). This means that the water is required to sit in this secondary holding cell

for at least 6 months before it can be released into natural waterways.  Allowing the water to sit

in this cell completes the treatment cycle and brings the effluent up to a standard set by the Water

Security Agency (WSA), which allows its release at this time.  The longer that the water can sit

in this holding cell, the longer it can be treated. Therefore, when discharges occur, the water is of

better quality since it has been treated for a longer period of time. Ideally, this time period should

be longer than the 6 month standard set by WSA.

The combined storage cell capacity of the lagoon is 27,906 m³, or 27,906,000 litres

(Turner, 2016). Contributors of the Lebret lagoon include the Village of Lebret, Star Blanket

First Nation, and many nearby lakefront cottages (MacPherson, 2016).  This lagoon has been

forced to discharge many times in the last couple of years: June, July and October of 2011,

5

October of 2014, and May of 2015 (Turner, 2016). Since the treatment of the wastewater within

the two-cell facultative lagoons is dependent on temperature, the quality of the effluent fluctuates

throughout the year as well (Turner, 2016). In the winter months, the surface of the lagoons

freeze, which limits sunlight and wind from impacting the wastewater (Turner, 2016). The

bacteria are also less active in these cold temperatures, which means that the water does not get

treated as well during the winter as it does during the spring and summer (Turner, 2016).

Because of this, a discharge that occurs in the spring (March-May) is of worse quality compared

to a discharge that occurs in the fall (September-November). To account for these fluctuations in

discharge effluent quality, spring discharges should be timed with spring run-off to help dilute

the water (Turner, 2016). The discharges that occur in the fall consist of high quality effluent

since breakdown of waste occurred all summer long (Turner, 2016). When applying this

knowledge to the Lebret lagoon, it can be noted that the October, 2014 discharge would have

been of much better quality than the latest discharge in May, 2015. It is also important to point

out the three discharges that occurred in 2011: since they occurred so close together in one year,

the water was not able to sit for the standard 180 day retention period. This means that the

effluent from these discharges would have been of very poor quality, which has a significant

impact on surrounding lakes. Reducing the amount of discharges that occur from this lagoon

would play an important role in keeping surrounding lakes in better condition.

The effluent from the Lebret lagoon discharges end up in Lake Katepwa, which is

commonly used by residents of nearby camps, a provincial park, and just under 600 lakefront

cottages (MacPherson, 2016). These discharges consist of an effluent that is high in nitrates and

phosphates, and leads to foam and algae build-up around the shoreline of Lake Katepwa. This

poor water quality prevents residents from entering the lake at certain times of the year due to

6

safety and health concerns. This poor water quality also creates animosity between the different

communities around these lakes (MacPherson, 2016). Although there are many lagoons in the

area that discharge treated effluent into nearby waterways, communities tend to blame one

another for the poor quality of the lakes.

3.  Objectives

This project has four objectives:

1. To provide passive engineering solutions that will reduce the wastewater load within the

lagoons of Small Saskatchewan municipalities (Lebret).

2. To provide an approximation of how much water can be redirected from the lagoons.

3. Provide recommendations for the future: how properties can be built with better water-

saving techniques.

4. To educate the residents and governing bodies about the advantages of implementing

small changes to their current situation.

4. Methodology

Instead of focusing on technical ways to improve or expand the lagoon, this project

focuses on ways to reduce the amount of water initially entering the lagoon. There are many

options for this town involving water collection and water saving techniques that would create a

significant positive impact and reduce the wastewater load in the Lebret lagoon. In turn, this

would reduce the amount of discharges that occur from this lagoon and improve the quality of

the surrounding bodies of water in the long-term.  This project includes a primary plan

(techniques that will have a significant effect on reducing wastewater load), secondary plan

7

(techniques that will have a smaller impact, but an impact nonetheless), and tertiary plan

(recommendations for the future of Lebret), as stated below:

4.1 Primary Plan:

There are two main water-saving techniques that are outlined in the primary plan: tree

irrigation and low-flush toilets.

With increased public awareness concerning environmental issues such as water

pollution, several countries have been developing new technologies and techniques for the

application of trees for environmental uses. Two species of trees that are widely used for such

practices include willows and poplars. These trees, if planted in the correct areas, can collect and

utilize a large amount of water that may otherwise end up in the lagoon. Willow and poplar

species have also been used for applications in phytoremediation and soil pollution control,

wetland stabilization and sedimentation control, wastewater treatment, and some have been used

for carbon sequestration (Ball et al. N.d.). Willows and poplars would be very useful in and

around the Lebret area, especially near the lagoon area where discharges take place.

The second part of the primary plan involves low-flush toilets. Canada is one of the

largest per capita users of freshwater around the world (Environment Canada, 2011). The

average domestic Canadian household uses 274 litres of water per person per day, with 29% of

that coming from toilet usage (Epcor, 2011). Since a large portion of Canadian water usage

comes from toilets, replacing the existing toilets with low-flush toilets is a concrete way to

reduce the amount of water being used throughout Lebret.

The Village of Lebret (along with other small communities) does not have a wastewater

meter monitoring how much waste from each household enters the lagoon (Turner, 2016). In the

8

absence of metered data, it can be assumed that 100% of water usage goes straight to the lagoon

(typically not all of it does, but to account for influx and inflow it is assumed) (Turner, 2016).

This assumption was used when performing the calculations throughout this project. The

wastewater from toilets, sinks and showers is constantly being pumped into the primary cell of

the lagoon (Turner, 2016). Therefore, any water that can be collected from toilet flushing will be

directly saved from entering the Lebret lagoon.

4.2 Secondary Plan

The first part of the secondary plan is to implement rain water collection throughout the

area. Rain barrels can collect a large amount of rainwater on houses and public spaces, and if

used by a large number of people, can help reduce the amount of water consumption throughout

Lebret (City of Saskatoon, N.d.). Rainwater can be easily collected and used throughout the

homes and yards in Lebret. This collected water can be used instead of treated hose water, which

will put less pressure on the Lebret lagoon and help it remain under capacity (City of Saskatoon,

N.d.).  

The secondary plan also includes a strategy for implementing greywater collection and

recycling throughout homes in the area. The average person washes their hands five times per

day and uses 8.32 litres of water each time, assuming they wash their hands for 15 seconds

(Avon Lake Regional Water, 2016). This data can be applied to the population of people living

in Lebret. Using a bucket to collect lightly-used sink water after washing hands, and using this

water for toilet flushing or watering plants can have a significant effect on reducing wastewater

load throughout Lebret.

9

4.3 Tertiary Plan

There are 40 new lots around the Lebret area where new houses and cottages are set to be

built (MacPherson, 2016). This project design includes recommendations for these new

properties to be built using the aforementioned water saving techniques, as well as a “healthy”

yard or shoreline. This would allow residents to more easily recycle the water on their property,

reduce the amount of water going into the lagoon and keep lakes in better condition.   

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Primary Plan

5.1.1 Tree irrigation

The first part of the primary plan is to implement tree irrigation around the lagoon site,

bare and open areas, and homes throughout Lebret, using specific trees that will thrive with the

current soil conditions. Two species of trees that are both native to Saskatchewan, and have high

water intake are willow trees and hybrid poplars (Kipp & Callaway, 2003). These trees have the

ability to absorb and process large volumes of groundwater, which can be useful for reducing the

amount of water going into the lagoon.

A single willow tree has the ability to transpire more than 5000 gallons (19,000 litres) of

water on a summer day, while a hybrid poplar can transpire between 50 and 350 gallons (190 to

1300 litres) of water per day (Suthersan, 2001). These trees, if planted in the correct areas, can

collect and utilize a large amount of water that may otherwise end up in the lagoon. If planted

near rain gutters along households, these trees can absorb large volumes of rainwater. If planted

near lakes or wetlands, they can help contain groundwater, and absorb a significant amount of

rainwater and melt water during flood periods (Suthersan, 2001). Also, planting these types of

10

trees along the lagoon area can provide pre-emptive measures during discharges. Not only would

they absorb a large portion of the water that is being discharged, these trees can also absorb large

amounts of nitrogen and phosphates that are found in the effluent (Ball et al. N.d.). This means

that if or when discharges occur in the future, there will be less nitrogen and phosphates being

released into the lake, which helps minimize the adverse effects of a discharge and keeps the

lakes in good condition.

Not only are these trees capable of transpiring huge amounts of groundwater, they can

also play important roles in phytoremediation and pollution control (Ball et al. N.d.).  With

increased public awareness of environmental issues such as water pollution, similar to the issues

residents are experiencing in Lebret, Saskatchewan, several countries have been developing new

technologies and techniques for the application of poplars and willows for environmental uses. In

Chile and Bulgaria, willow trees are commonly planted along river banks for stabilization and to

reduce sedimentation (Ball et al. N.d.). In the USA, hundreds of small poplar plantations are used

as riparian buffers, for wastewater treatment, phytoremediation, and carbon sequestration (Ball et

al. N.d.). In 2011, SaskWater implemented a 3-acre tree irrigation site in Moose Jaw,

Saskatchewan, consisting of all hybrid poplar and willow clones, irrigated completely with the

effluent of the Moose Jaw wastewater treatment plant (SaskWater N.d.). The goal of effluent-

irrigated woodlots such as these is zero wastewater discharge into any nearby bodies of water,

helping keep lakes and other waterways free of any wastewater effluent and in good condition

(SaskWater N.d.).

Poplars and willows take up large amounts of nitrogen and heavy metals which can also

help purify polluted soils (Ball et al. N.d.). Research from Sweden has shown that one hectare of

willow trees has the potential to take up 150-200 kg of nitrogen per year (Ball et al. N.d.). This

11

can be very useful in the case of any future discharges that occur from lagoons to nearby

waterways. If willow trees are planted near discharge locations, they would help mitigate the

effects of these discharges in the lakes of concern, in this case, Lake Katepwa.

5.1.2 Low Flush Toilets

The second part of the primary plan is to replace the existing toilets throughout Lebret

with low flush toilets. Many of the public toilets in Lebret are out-dated and use 13 liters of

water per flush. This accounts for a significant amount of water being used when there are water-

saving alternatives. Replacing these old toilets with low-flush toilets can greatly reduce the

amount of wastewater entering lagoons.

There are two main types of low flush toilets. The first is a dual flush toilet, which uses

two litres of water to flush liquid waste, and six litres of water to flush solid waste (Epcor 2011).

The second type is a single flush toilet, which typically uses four to six litres of water per flush

(Epcor 2011). This analysis takes the average number of litres of water per flush from toilets

which can be found in local Canadian department stores (Rona, Home Depot, etc.). The average

low flush toilet utilises approximately four litres of water per flush.

A “toilet tour” was taken on January 15, 2016, to physically examine and count the

public toilets that are currently being used throughout Lebret.  Four public locations were visited

and taken into consideration: the skating rink, gym, town office and the local bar. The types of

toilets were taken into consideration as well; mainly how many litres of water are being flushed

from each toilet. A total of 31 toilets were counted and observed. Table 1 below outlines a

summary of the findings:

12

Location Number of Toilets Type of Toilet (Litres/Flush)

Rink 7 13

5 7

Gym 7 7

Office 5 13

1 7

1 4

Bar 5 7

Table 1: Number of toilets that were counted throughout the various public locations in Lebret, Saskatchewan. Column 3 shows how many litres of water are used per flush of each toilet in each of the locations.

Type of Toilet (Litres/Flush) Percentage in Public Places

13 38%

7 58%

4 0.032%

Table 2: Shows the percentage of public toilets throughout Lebret that use 13, 7, or 4 litres of water per flush.

Throughout the “toilet tour” of Lebret, only one toilet was found to be a low-flush toilet,

which equals 0.032% of the total toilets. This toilet was located in the Village of Lebret town

office. 38% of the public toilets in Lebret were found to be very out-dated and use 13 liters of

water per flush. The rest of the toilets were found to use 7 litres of water per flush. According to

the Water Security Agency (WSA), 100% of the wastewater that is flushed from these toilets

goes straight to the Lebret lagoon. Therefore, switching these out-dated toilets with low-flush

toilets can significantly reduce the wastewater load entering the lagoon.

13

According to the 2011 Canadian Census, Lebret’s population was 218 people. The

Alliance for Water Efficiency (2016) states that each person flushes the toilet an average of five

times per day. This gives a total of 1090 flushes per day amongst the population of Lebret (Table

3). This data, along with the data collected on the toilet tour, was used to calculate the amount of

water going into the Lebret lagoon from toilets. Table 3 below illustrates the current water usage

from toilets throughout Lebret, assuming an even distribution of toilets according to public

spaces. Calculations show that 10,056 litres of water are being flushed per day from the current

toilets throughout Lebret. This equates to 1,599,524 litres of water per year that directly enters

the Lebret lagoon.

Population of Lebret (2011 Census)

Flushes/day (AWE)

Type of Toilet (L/flush)

Number of Toilets

Flushes per type of toilet

L per type of toilet

218 1090 13 12 422 5485

7 18 633 4430

4 1 35 141

Total: 31

10,056 L per day

3,670,487 L per

year

Table 3: Current water usage in Lebret, Saskatchewan based on toilet tour data (Table 2) and data from Alliance for Water Efficiency (2016).

14

After calculating the water usage from the current toilets throughout Lebret, a

comparison calculation was made using data from low-flush toilets. Table 4 below shows the

estimated water usage if all toilets throughout Lebret were switched to low flush toilets.

Calculations were made using an average of four litres of water per flush, derived from

averaging the litres per flush from toilets found in typical department stores throughout Regina,

Sk. (Home Depot, Rona, etc.).

Population of Lebret (2011 Canadian Census)

Flushes / Day (AWE)

Type of

Toilet

(L / flush)

L / day

L / year

218 1090 4 3270 1591400

Table 4: Estimated water usage in Lebret, Saskatchewan if all current toilets were switched to low-flush toilets. Alliance for Water Efficiency (2016) assumes people flush an average of 5 times per day.

When comparing the current toilet calculations (Table 3) with the low-flush toilet

calculations (Table 4), it can be seen that almost 3.7 million litres of water are being sent from

the current toilets to the Lebret lagoon, while only 1.6 million litres of water would be sent to the

lagoon if the toilets were low-flush toilets.  This means that over 2 million litres of water, or 57%

of the water, could be saved each year from the lagoon by switching to low-flush toilets. This

would create a significant positive impact on the wastewater load issues in Lebret,

Saskatchewan.

15

5.2 Secondary Plan

5.2.1 Rainwater Collection

The first part of the secondary plan is to implement rain water collection throughout the

Lebret area. Rain barrels can collect a large amount of rainwater on houses and public spaces.

This provides a free source of water for the yards of homeowners, and can help reduce the

amount of water accessing the lagoon (City of Saskatoon, N.d.).

The average rain barrel, which can be purchased from local department stores, holds

approximately 300 litres of water, and costs range from $50 to $300 depending on the barrel’s

style and material.  With approximately 270 mm of rainfall between April and October, a 1000

square foot roof has the ability to fill a 300 litre rain barrel 85 times (City of Saskatoon, N.d.).

This gives a total of over 25,000 litres of water collected from each rain barrel between April and

October. If each private dwelling in Lebret, Saskatchewan were to use a rain barrel (143 private

dwellings according to the 2011 Canadian Census), this would equate to 3,575,000 litres of water

being collected in Lebret in these rainy months.  

Rain barrels should be situated beside houses or garages, with the downspout from rain

gutters directed to the top of the barrel. This ensures that when it rains, the water collected on

rooftops will flow into the rain barrel (City of Saskatoon, N.d.).  The water that is collected from

these rain barrels can be used in and around households throughout Lebret. Using rainwater

reduces the need for treated water, which puts less pressure on the lagoon, and also reduces

greenhouse gas emissions (City of Saskatoon, N.d.). This will also reduce water bill costs, since

rainwater is free to use (City of Saskatoon, N.d.).  This rainwater can be used to water indoor and

outdoor plants, water lawns, or even to wash cars (washing cars with rainwater doesn’t leave soft

water spots behind) (City of Saskatoon, N.d.). This collected rainwater can also be used to

16

irrigate willow and poplars trees on household properties. Using the water collected in rain

barrels will almost completely reduce the need to use hose water around yards, which greatly

minimizes household water consumption between the months of April and October. This will

decrease the amount of water going from the homes in Lebret to the lagoon, and help keep the

lagoon under capacity.

5.2.2 Greywater Collection

Advanced grey water collection can call for high building and maintenance costs, which

small municipalities like Lebret cannot afford.  Small communities like these are looking for

cheap and easy fixes that when combined, will reduce the wastewater load going into the lagoon.

By purchasing a small bucket that will fit into the bathroom sink, residents can collect the lightly

used water, or greywater, from washing their hands or doing dishes. This water can then be used

to flush their toilets or to water plants or trees throughout their property.  According to Avon

Lake Regional Water (2016), the average person washes their hands at least 5 times per day and

uses 8.32 litres of water each time, assuming they wash their hands for 15 seconds. Table 5,

below, illustrates the daily and yearly totals of water being used throughout Lebret, Sk. just from

hand-washing.

Hand washes/ day L/wash L/day L/year

1090 8.32 9068.8 3,310,112

Table 5: Shows the amount of water (L) used per unit of time from washing hands in Lebret. Calculations are based on a population of 218 people, obtained from the 2011 Canadian Census and hand-washing data obtained from Avon Lake Regional Water (2016).

17

A study from the University of New Mexico has shown that grey water can be used to

water plants without significantly affecting the health of these plants (Wright 1996). According

to this study, there are a few constraints that must be taken into consideration before doing so.

First, the grey water must be applied directly from the collection buckets to these plants, and not

through a sprinkler or hose system (Wright, 1996). This is due to the microbial build-up that can

occur in piping systems from the microbes found in greywater (Wright, 1996). Secondly, if

applying grey water to gardens, herbs or any edible plants, these plants must be rooted plants that

are cooked prior to consumption (Wright, 1996). It is not highly recommended to water edible

plants with greywater to begin with (Wright 1996). Lastly, greywater should not be the only

source of water that is applied to a plant, it should be rotated with fresh water every once-in-a-

while to avoid the build-up of sodium salts (Wright 1996).

By implementing greywater collection and recycling, water consumption can be reduced

within the households of Lebret. Since it is assumed that 100% of the water used throughout

households ends up in the Lebret lagoon, greywater recycling will have a significant impact on

reducing the wastewater load. If each person in Lebret were to recycle the water they use from

washing their hands every day, this would save a total of over three million litres of water from

entering the Lebret lagoon per year (Table 5).

5.3 Tertiary Plan

Reducing the amount of wastewater going into the lagoon and reducing the number of

discharges that take place begins with awareness and education. Residents of these small towns

should be educated on the impact that they have on their lagoon and surrounding lakes. When

community members understand the effects of making small, simple changes throughout their

homes, changes can be made and improvements can be seen.

18

There are 40 new lots in and around the Lebret area where new homes and cottages are

set to be built (MacPherson, 2016). It is recommended that these new homes are built with the

water-saving techniques mentioned in this report. This includes low-flush toilets, rain barrels for

rainwater collection, methods of greywater collection and recycling, and yards with willow and

poplar trees. It is also very important that these new homes have “healthy” yards and/or

shorelines. Appendix 1 illustrates what people would currently call an “ideal” yard and shoreline

(Kipp & Callaway, 2003). This picture shows a cleared beach with sand, a fixed dock, a short-cut

lawn, and limited native vegetation along the riparian buffer. This yard does not promote a

healthy yard or a healthy lake. Not much water collection can take place on this yard, and an

increase of surface runoff takes place (Kipp & Callaway, 2003). When all lake-front homes look

similar to this, it is more difficult to keep the lakes in good condition.

The picture of an ideal landscape needs to change throughout Saskatchewan. Beautiful

lakefront homes do not need cleared beaches with sand and perfectly mowed lawns. Appendix 2

illustrates what a “healthy” yard and shoreline look like (Kipp & Callaway, 2003). The yard in

this picture is just as beautiful as the yard in Appendix 1, however this yard promotes water

collection and decreases surface runoff (Kipp & Callaway, 2003). A non-fixed dock can be seen,

along with un-paved walkways, and a lawn that has only been cut short in areas closer to the

house. An important change in this “healthy” yard is that much of the native vegetation along the

riparian buffer has been left alone. These plants play a big part in keeping the lakes in good

condition (Kipp & Callaway, 2003). Only once the homeowners understand the impact of these

changes that can be made in and around their homes, will an improvement occur in surrounding

lakes.

19

Instead of completely scarring the land when building these future homes and cottages, as

much of the native vegetation as possible should be left on these properties. Tables 6, 7, and 8

outline a list of trees, shrubs, and wildflowers that are native to Saskatchewan that can be

incorporated into existing properties. Each table includes a brief description of where these

different plant species should be planted and how they grow. The willow species in Table 7 are

recommended because of their high water intake capabilities.

Trees Description/Comments

Balsam Poplar (Populus balsamifera)

Good for shoreline stabilization; plant in sunny areas in typically wet soils. Tree is fast-growing, shallow-rooted, short-lived, trees will re-sprout when cut, valuable in restoring flooded lands or other wet habitat.

Trembling Aspen (Populus tremuloides)

Good for shoreline stabilization; plant in sunny areas with relatively wet soil. Tree is fast-growing, hardy, yellow fall leaves, prefers sandy/gravel soils.

Balsam Fir(Abies balsamea)

To be planted in shady areas in typically wet soils. Available from greenhouses.

Tamarack(Larix laricina)

To be planted in sunny and partly shady areas in typically wet soils. Tree consists of fine needles which turn yellow and drop in the fall.

Table 1: List of large trees that thrive in Saskatchewan conditions (Kipp & Callaway 2003).

Shrubs/Shrubby Trees

Description/Comments

Beaked Willow(Salix bebbiana)

Good for shore stabilization; fast-growing, plant near water in sunny or partly shady areas, tolerates flooding, good erosion control.

Pussy Willow(Salix discolor)

Good for shore stabilization; thickets around sloughs, fast-growing.

Wolf Willow(Elaeagnus commutate)

Good for shore stabilization; plant near water in sunny or partly shady areas, good erosion control, very fragrant yellow flowers.

20

Sandbar Willow(Salix exigua)

Good for shore stabilization; plant near water in sunny or partly shady areas, dense, fast-growing, tolerates flooding.

Shining Willow(Salix lucida)

Good for shore stabilization; plant near water in sunny or partly shady areas, lake and slough margins, flood plains.

Scouler’s Willow(Salix scouleriana)

Good for shore stabilization; plant near water in sunny or partly shady areas, fast-growing, tolerates flooding, drought-tolerant.

Red-Osier Dogwood(Cornus stolonifera)

Good for shore stabilization; fast-growing, good erosion control, plant in sunny or partly-shady areas.

Table 2: List of small shrubby trees that thrive in Saskatchewan conditions (Kipp & Callaway 2003).

Wildflowers Description/Comments

Common Yarrow(Achillea millefolium)

Good for shoreline stabilization, grasslands, open woods, white flowers, spreads easily.

Bearberry (Kinnikinick)(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)

Good for shoreline stabilization, good ground cover, drought tolerant, small red berries, prefers full sunlight.

Creamy Peavine(Lathyrus ochroleucus)

Good for shoreline stabilization, moist areas and clearings, yellow flowers, prefers wet soils.

Western Canada Violet(Viola rugulosa)

Moist woods and meadows, white flowers, spreads easily.

Purple Prairie-Clover(Petalostemon purpureum)

Grasslands, eroded slopes and banks, purple flowers.

Wild Mint(Mentha arvensis)

Moist to wet woods and meadows, scented leaves, spreads easily.

Smooth Fleabane(Erigeron glabellus)

Moist woods and grasslands, pink flowers.

Table 3: List of wildflowers that are native to Saskatchewan and are good choices for establishing your riparian buffer. Many spread easily and require little management (Kipp & Callaway 2003).

21

6. Summary and Conclusions

The following Table 9 summarizes the total water savings after one year of implementing

low flush toilets, rainwater collection, and greywater recycling throughout Lebret, Saskatchewan.

This does not include the water that would be saved from the lagoon from the tree irrigation plan

because a solid calculation could not be made for the transpiration rates of willow and hybrid

poplars year-round. A total of almost 9 million litres of water (seen in Table 9) can be saved by

implementing these three simple plans throughout Lebret. This value is very significant

considering the storage cell capacity of the Lebret lagoon is just short of 28 million litres. This

total of water savings (in only three out of the four plans) equals almost one third of the storage

cell capacity of the lagoon. This amounts to 32% of the water in the lagoon storage cells that

could be saved simply by using a rain barrel, recycling greywater, and switching to low flush

toilets.

It is also significant to note that this calculated total was generated only from the

population of people living in Lebret, representing only a portion of the people who are

contributing wastewater to the Lebret lagoon. This does not include Starblanket First Nation or

any of the lakefront cottages that are also contributing to this lagoon. If people from these

surrounding communities were to implement some of these water-saving plans as well, the

amount of water being saved would be significantly greater than 9 million litres.

Plan Water Savings after implemented for 1 year in Lebret (L)

22

Low Flush Toilets 2,079,087

Rainwater Collection 3,575,000

Greywater Recycling 3,310,112

Total: 8,964,199

Table 9: shows total water savings calculations (L) for implementation of low flush toilets, rainwater collection, and greywater recycling. Calculations are based on implementation for one full year in Lebret, Saskatchewan.

The calculations shown in Table 9 above may be generated given the Lebret population,

however, these numbers are significant for any small municipalities in Saskatchewan that utilize

two-cell facultative lagoons. This design is applicable for any of these similar communities.

7. Recommendations

It is recommended that not only Lebret, but all small Saskatchewan communities with

two-cell facultative lagoons implement the water-waving techniques outlined in this report.

8. Acknowledgements

A special thank you is owed to Aura Lee MacPherson with The Calling Lakes

Ecomuseum for providing project motivation, current problems and issues, and guidance

throughout the project timeline. Thank you to the town of Lebret for allowing the study to be

23

conducted in their community. Sincere gratitude to Dr. Stephanie Young for providing

knowledge on lagoons, greywater treatment, and all extra assistance throughout the project

timeline. Thank you to Don Turner (Water Security Agency: Environmental Officer of Lebret),

Bill Schroeder (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada) and Alice Davis (The Lower Qu’Appelle

Watershed Stewards) for providing necessary data and information needed to complete all

research and calculations.

9. References

Alliance for Water Efficiency. “Home Water Use: Toilets” (2016). N.p. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

Avon Lake Regional Water. “How much water do I use when I…” (2016). N.p. Avon Lake,

Ohio. Web. 03 Feb. 2016.

24

Ball, J., Carle, J., and Del Lungo, A. “Contribution of poplars and willows to sustainable forestry

and rural development.” Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations.

<www.fao.org> Web. 20 Feb. 2016.  

City of Saskatoon. “Rain Barrels A How-To Guide.” N.d. Web. 4 Dec 2016

Environment Canada. (2011). “2011 Municipal Water Use Report – Municipal Water Use 2009

Statistics." Government of Canada: Environment Canada. N.p., Web. 07 Jan. 2016.

Epcor Utilities Inc. (2011). "Canada Water Week: Water Use in Your Home." EPCOR. N.p.,

Web. 05 Feb. 2016.

Kipp, S. & Callaway, C. 2003. On the Living Edge: Your Handbook for Waterfront Living.

Saskatchewan/Manitoba Edition. Nature Saskatchewan.

MacPherson, A. Calling Lakes Eco Museum. Personal Communication. September 19,

2015.

Government of Canada. "Residential Water Use in Canada." Environment and Climate Change

Canada. N.p., N.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2016.

SaskWater. “Wastewater Treatment and Management.” N.d.

<http://www.saskwater.com/services/our_services/treatment.php> Web. 20 Feb. 2016.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Census Profile: Lebret Saskatchewan. N.d. <www12.statcan.gc.ca/>

Web. 26 Jan. 2016.

Suthersan, S.S. 2001. Natural and Enhanced Remediation Systems. ARCADIS: Environmental

Science and Engineering Series. CRC Press.

Turner, D. BSc. Environmental Officer of Lebret; Water Security Agency.  Personal

Communication. Feb 5, 2016.

25

Wright, M. "Safe Use of Household Greywater." Cooperative Extension Service (1996): 1-4.

Web. 1 Mar. 2016.

Water Security Agency (WSA). "Two Cell Lagoon Operation and Maintenance." (2004). EPB

310. Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment. Web. 7 Feb. 2016.

Appendix 1

26

Figure 1: Shows what people would call an ‘ideal’ yard and shoreline. Illustration from “On the Living Edge: Your Handbook for Waterfront Living” (Kipp & Callaway, 2003).

Appendix 2

27

Figure 2: Shows what a ‘healthy’ yard and shoreline looks like. Illustration from “On the Living Edge: Your Handbook for Waterfront Living” (Kipp & Callaway, 2003).

28