Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Gone Missing

The EIR Scoping meeting at the community center last night was pretty well attended, considering the weather. No TV coverage, however, so if folks were wanting to see it later at home, tough luck..

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was sent out to the various state and federal agencies, any and all agencies that will be involved in this project. Apparently, earlier in the day, at the BOS meeting, CSD Board member Lisa Schicker. noted that an important document had been left out of the NOP’s “partial list of existing information for this project.” The missing document was the RESCINDED SOC. The original EIR’s with their original SOC in it that allowed Tri-W to be built in the first place are listed, but not the RESCINDED one that made a finding that the original SOC wasn’t supported by any fact or evidence concerning having to keep Tri-W at Tri-W (or should I say “Formerly known as Tri-W) because of “community values,” and such like.

The RESCINDED SOC is an important piece of “existing information for this project,” since if it’s gone missing, various agencies might proceed on the incorrect assumption that the original SOC is still in place.

Well, perhaps Schicker will mail a copy of the RESCINDED SOC to the various agencies and they’ll remember to include it in the NOP paperwork before going forward.

In a cc of an email sent to Supervisor Gibson and Paavo Ogren, Schicker is still asking for a copy of the law that the Tribune keeps referring to as in, Tri-W is still on the scoping table because Tri-W has to be evaluated as “required by law.”

What law? Near as I can see, the county , as lead agency, has a lot of latitude as to what they will or won’t consider, what will and what won’t be on or off the table. The term “reasonable” is bandied about and as lead agency, the County will, like Humpty Dumpty, determine what “reasonable” is.

Maybe that’s just the Tribune misspeaking itself? Or one of those phrases bandied about when you want to shut people up and have them stop inquiring too closely. It’s now clear that Tri-W (aka Formerly Known As Tri-W) will remain on the table for a variety of “political” and “personal” reason, none of which are necessarily found in “law.” Also, it will serve as a useful comparison model for other things to be evaluated against. As in, Is System X more or less expensive than Tri-W? Is System Y’s energy use footprint less or more than Tri-W’s? and etc.

Uh, Oh, It’s One More Email 101

Los Ososian Michael Jones also took frothing umbrage with Supervisor Gibson’s bland dismissal of The Los Osos 45’s CDO’s as “symbolic” and fired off an email. Posted with permission. Still don’t know is if the BOS majority will come up with a resolution or merely send one of those genteel and meaningless We View With Alarm, Point With Dismay “letters,” to the RWQCB that allows everyone to pretend they’re now off the hook – Look, we sent a letter, what more do you want, you tiresome symbolic people?

Mike's email:

To all my friends and neighbors who love and care about Los Osos,

Over this past week, I have read and listened to at least a half dozen complaints regarding Supervisor Bruce Gibson's representation of our Community regarding the CCRWQCB's enforcement actions and CDO's.

As I watched the replay of the last County BOS meeting(12/11), during the supervisor's comments on the Los Osos wastewater issue, I was transfixed watching Supervisors Achadjian and Patterson represent and defend the community of Los Osos while listening to Bruce Gibson explain and back pedal away his reasons for not representing us. During this exchange, all I could feel for Supervisor Gibson was embarrassment. It had the total appearance that Supervisors Achadjian and Patterson were "taking Bruce to school". How to be a representative of your community school. How to represent your district 101. Watch the tape if you haven't. It's quite sad. Rather than represent his constituents and the community of Los Osos, I guess Bruce chose to represent the RWQCB by restating the Water Board's position that the CDO's are being held in abeyance due to a PZLDF lawsuit. The first thing I would say to Bruce is, our property owners, who have been issued CDO's and attacked by a rogue state bureaucracy that has no oversight, have no choice but to defend themselves in a real court of law and not the kangaroo CDO court that has been held by the RWQCB. They really don't have a choice, do they. Think about it. I would also like to thank Supervisor Patterson for representing us by making the point that if the CDO's go away, the lawsuits go away. Supervisor Gibson stated that he hadn't read the PZLDF lawsuit recently. I wonder if Bruce has ever read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. There are things in there about States depriving persons of life, liberty, or property and other things about Equal Protection under the Law which is a huge line the RWQCB crossed when they decided to pursue selective "random" enforcement actions. I can't wait to see what a real court has to say about this one. What our wastewater project needs right now is movement and the biggest act of constipation to point is the enforcement actions of the CCRWQCB. It's too bad our local district 2 representative refuses to take a stand for us on this issue.

It's my understanding that Supervisor Gibson received heavy campaign contributions from the Pandora Nash-Karner led Taxpayers Watch Group and that Taxpayers Watch received heavy contributions from Barnard Construction, the gravity sewer collection company who lost their contract when the Tri-W project went belly up. Follow the money. Perhaps this explains why Bruce Gibson drafted a letter last Summer to the Coastal Commission supporting the extension of the Coastal development permit on the Tri-W property(you'll recall this motion was shot down by everybody in the room including Pavvo).

It is a matter of record and fact that Pandora Nash-Karner(Taxpayers Watch) drafted a letter(email) to the CCRWQCB asking them to pursue fines against the community of Los Osos. Perhaps this is why Supervisor Gibson refuses to take a stand on the CDO issue and all his comments are mealy mouthed and merely reactionary.

I also watched the replay of the December 7th CCRWQCB meeting. Of the many on that day who spoke at the lectern representing Los Osos, I believe our Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, was the only one who did not advocate that the CDO's be rescinded or vacated. Even Taxpayers Watch supported LOCSD representative Joe Sparks and Taxpayers Watch supporter Don Bearden both clearly stated and requested that the CCRWQCB vacate the CDO enforcement action.

So, I guess my question for Supervisor Bruce Gibson is this......
What's the frigging problem?

This is not the type of leadership we are looking for in our elected representatives.
There is only on word I can think of to describe Supervisor Gibson's performance as our representative to date.

His fear of offending a minority special interest group has impeded his ability to defend an entire community.
How sad.

Is it too much to ask that he just believe in something and take a firm stand?

Here's a question......
When the County accepts responsibility for the wastewater project, shouldn't the responsibility for the CDO's and the fines that go with them be transferred to the County who permitted the septic tanks in the first place?

Maybe this is reason #645 why the County of SLO needs to support our property owners and adopt a resolution supporting that the CCRWQCB VACATE AND RESCIND ALL CDO/CAO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

I'm sorry I can't attend the County BOS meetings but I know there will always be good people there to represent us. I thank and love you all.

your pal in Los Osos,


p.s. sorry for the rant but venting makes me feel better. I can't even imagine what our front line 45 CDO recipients have gone thru but I want to thank them for representing us all.

Is That a Lawsuit I See In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Glad To See Me?

As previously posted here and now noted in the Dec 18 Tribune, (“Reclamator salesmen seek $80M in claim – The Company that says its device turns sewage into drinking water asserts it was ridiculed by the state.”), AES CEO Tom Murphy and his business partner Mark Low, filed a claim against the state alleging “defamatory statements” about their product via Harvey Packard, the RWQCB enforcement guy. Apparently, Packard went on KVEC AM 920 radio and dissed Murphy’s Reclamator. And Roger Briggs, the RWQCB’s CEO sent a letter to AES (which was cc’ed all over the place by various folks) that stated that “Low and Murphy have been making ‘false, misleading and unsubstantiated’ claims about their technology.”

The claim was filed with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board and my guess is that it will be turned down flat, thereby allowing Murphy to go into a “real” court if he intends to pursue a defamation lawsuit against Packard or Briggs.

Personally, I don’t get a “defamation” lawsuit. Impossible to win unless you have a smoking gun in the form of a letter, signed in blood, stating: “I _________ intend, with malice aforethought, to lie about Mr. Ms. Mrs __________ knowing full well all my statements are false and I further fully intend to cause them harm by falsely attacking their character, their businesses, and lying about whatever I can lie about in order to deliberately ruin them and their reputation. Signed __________

Otherwise, you got zip chance because the person you’re suing can simply say, “Oh, gee, sorry, I made that statement based on the information I had at the time and I had no reason to believe the information was false, I harbored no malice towards _______, never intended harm, but was working from verifiable information. & etc.

Even trickier, OPINION, is often totally shielded, as in, "I think Mr. Ms. Mrs. ________ is a Doodeyhead." Free speech. Opinion. Protected.

BUT, by entering this claim, Mr. Murphy allowed the Tribune another bite at this apple – a perfect chance to run a headline that referred to Murphy & Low as “salesmen,” with all that – wink-nudge—implies and wrongly state that they plan to turn “sewage into drinking water.” (If Murphy demands a retraction of the drinking water quote, that retraction will be buried in tiny print somewhere inside the paper, never to be read by anyone—more wink-nudge.)

And as for Water into Wine, Sewage into Drinking Water, to my knowledge they’ve never asserted that. They do assert that whatever they’ve turned the sewage into meets the federal standards “which meets or exceeds MCLG’s for on-site beneficial re-use and recharge,”and therefore doesn’t qualify as “discharge” of pollutants, whatever “discharge” means, a definition they’ve got to settle with Briggs, the County, the RWQCB, and, likely, a federal court who may finally have to define what the hell “discharge” actually means in Water Board World where Citizen X is forbidden to “discharge” anything into the PZ while the CSD was given a “discharge” permit to “discharge” gazillions of gallons of treated “pollutants” back into the ground .

Well, good luck to Murphy & Low. Unless you’re just looking for headlines and don’t care what people say about you as long as they spell your name correctly, never, as the old mot goes, never argue with someone who buys ink by the ton. Or, like the Tribune, that often gets things so deliciously wrong then continues to cut-n-paste the wrong info in order to keep sticking it – like boilerplate – onto the tail end of so many Los Osos stories.

And Now, Let Me Go To The End Of The Driveway, Feed The Crows, And Get The Paper To See If Something Really Dumb Is On The Front Page.

Whew, nope. But, interesting to see it’s a case of deja vu all over again with Animal Services. Years ago, during the Title Nine Wars to re-write the animal regs, DAS ended up in disarray, was handed off to the Sheriff and things quieted down for a while. Now, things are in disarray again – clearly from the testimony at the BOS yesterday, we’ve got a typical problem coming up again: How to reconcile the various missions of Animal Services – legal issues and code enforcement, public safety and health issues, humane sheltering and active adoption programs, public education, and so forth. It’s quite a list and a hard balancing act to get all those often overlapping missions done right on a limited budget.

Thanks to policy changes, and most critically the change in policy that requires all dogs or cats adopted be spayed or neutered before being released to their new families (ironically, earlier nationwide studies showed that huge number of shelter dogs were actually coming from . . . shelter dogs . . . as adopters “forgot” to neuter their new dog and so the cycle started again.), as well as the tremendous work of the volunteers, DAS kill rate is one of the lowest. (More irony again, a few years ago with Sheriff Hedges and DAS Director Anderson’s help, groups of county “animal welfare” folks came together to form the Animal Alliance and search for ways, for example, to tap into Maddy’s Fund, a private donor dedicated to reducing the kill-rate at shelters, only to find out that, thanks to so many volunteer groups’ efforts, our County’s kill rate was too LOW to qualify for those particular dollars (understandable since Maddy’s Fund could then concentrate on counties with really awful high kill-rates.)

So, clearly there have been changes for the better. But just as clearly, there are still problems. The county will be looking into ways to solve said problems. The Tribune story notes that the civil grand jury is “believed to be investigating” the shelter as well.

This isn’t rocket science. There is so much information already out there as to how to build on the success this county has already enjoyed, BUT there has to be a commitment – and finances – to improve things. Active, funded, aggressive spay/neuter programs, reconciliation and fair enforcement of laws, strongly supported volunteer programs, with an active coordination among all the private rescue groups, a fully funded humane education and outreach program for both kids in schools as well as the public in general, (how many dogs get dumped at shelters simply because their frustrated adopters don’t know how to successfully potty train their new pup?), all are critical parts of any program that even hopes to be successful.

I can only hope that whatever problems are found, whether personnel or structural or procedural, can be solved. There are so many active animal welfare groups manned by so many wonderful volunteers that surely solutions can be found both on a governmental level and on a public/private level that can allow us to do better for the cats and dogs we all profess to love, but then too often abandon with such cruel indifference..


Ron said...

Mike wrote:

'"It is a matter of record and fact that Pandora Nash-Karner (Taxpayers Watch) drafted a letter (email) to the CCRWQCB asking them to pursue fines against the community of Los Osos..."

She did do that, yes, but she actually did much more than that. She went so far as to develop and implement a "strategy" to have her Kool-Aid drinkers e-mail Briggs, as well, and demand fines, to make it look like there was a large portion of Los Osos that backed her strategy, when in reality it was just a handful of bitter losers.

I first reported on all of that at this link:

"It's my understanding that Supervisor Gibson received heavy campaign contributions from the Pandora Nash-Karner led Taxpayers Watch Group... "

Don't forget, right after he was elected, he re-appointed Nash-Karner to her seat on the SLO County Parks Commission, a seat she has held since 1991.

I reported on all of that at this link:

"I was transfixed watching Supervisors Achadjian and Patterson represent and defend the community of Los Osos while listening to Bruce Gibson explain and back pedal away his reasons for not representing us. During this exchange, all I could feel for Supervisor Gibson was embarrassment. "

Wanna see something trippy?

This morning, in Ann's post before this one -- before I even read Mike's excellent e-mail -- I left this comment:

"When Supervisor Gibson is inevitably recalled for his continued support for Nash-Karner over the 45 families with CDOs, I endorse Lisa Schicker as his replacement. She would make a GREAT 2nd District Supervisor."

He shoulda listened to me. Instead, he f-d up and trusted her... huge mistake, just ask Roger Briggs, the 1998 California Coastal Commission, the entire office of the State Water Resources Control Board's Division of Financial Assistance, Steve Monowitz, the voters of Los Osos from 1998 to 2005, etc., etc., etc...

Ann wrote:

"CSD Board member Lisa Schicker, noted that an important document had been left out of the NOP’s “partial list of existing information for this project.” The missing document was the RESCINDED SOC."

I'm sure it was just a slight "oversight"... that the one document that shows the Tri-W project was never valid to begin with, indeed, illegal, just happened to be left out of the record. "Oooops-seeee. Silly us," says county officials.

Mike said...

...hmmmm maybe it's one of those documents taken to Gail McPherson's Living Room at the direction of Lisa Schicker...

...of course the entire legal chain of custody has been followed and the CSD is insuring McPherson's home in case of fire... and I'm sure the District's legal counsel will testify that no document in the McPherson home would have been modified or lost or maybe made up... Oh Well, the CSD has lots of liability insurance and maybe some E&O too....????

I'm sure those silly County Awfficials won't mind accepting those documents on blind faith as to their accuracy.... or maybe not?

Churadogs said...

Mike said,"...hmmmm maybe it's one of those documents taken to Gail McPherson's Living Room at the direction of Lisa Schicker"

Uh, no, I believe the Rescinded SOC was agendized, discussed at a public CSD meeting, voted on by the CSD Board and entered into the official record & etc. The record of that recision should be on file at the CSD office and it's certainly is or should be part of the county records, it's surely in all the RWQCB records & etc. Don't know why Mike would think it was in McPherson's house?

Prefix528 said...

Tom Murphy has made the claim that the Reclamator produces drinking water on multiple occassions. Locally, he said this on his hilarious interview on Jug Country on September 13. He did qualify that though, saying that it might be more appropriate for children in Africa than local consumers.

He is quoted as saying the same thing to the Lake Havasu City Council on Valentines day in 2006. “Mr. Murphy said he could take the water quality up to reverse osmosis quality and completely recycle it through a household as drinkable.” His testimony is found at:

There are some interesting extras in the Lake Havasu Council minutes.

Mr. Murphy tells the city council that he is working on a project, “on the central coast of California, and believed that that 100 percent of the installation cost of this technology would be covered through grant assistance”.

And following Tom Murphy’s remarks, the council hears a presentation for a rival advanced technology system – by Mark Low. The COROH Wastewater System Solution he is promoting has been implemented in Panama and consists of,

“a vertical tube measuring 3' in diameter by 180' deep, and filled with Schedule “A” plastic that lasted 100 years. He said there were no moving parts in the system, it operated on hydraulics, and through the aerobic digestion of the matter it was purified and sanitized from ecoli and salmonella as it dropped through the strata, similar to running water over miles of rocks”.

“it would be completely below ground, odorless, and effluent from 100,000 people could be treated in a service area of two tennis courts”.

Mr. Low quite accurately refers to himself as being, “into the technology-selling business”. The Reclamator web page says that Low comes to his present role from a Canadian company, ECOfluid Systems USBF.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"I believe the Rescinded SOC was agendized, discussed at a public CSD meeting, voted on by the CSD Board and entered into the official record & etc."

They did. I reported on it at this link:

I just went and re-read that story and; 1) considering the circumstances today, it is VERY interesting, and; 2) I wrote that piece in August of 2006, and it is so accurate, and relevant today.

Check it:

- - -

"Further convoluting things for the only reason "an in-town site was chosen over other locations," is that not only is there absolutely no documentation whatsoever to support the concept that the community of Los Osos wanted their sewer plant to double as a centrally located "recreational asset" in the first place, there is an abundance of strong and credible evidence, like election results, that the community, obviously, never wanted an expensive, elaborate, public park in their sewer plant, as SewerWatch has repeatedly reported.

However, despite all of that excellent evidence, the SOC reads:

"These stated objectives underscore the community's desire [bolding mine] to balance compliance with the requirements of the RWQCB with other community goals such as... making the project affordable to all income groups and providing much-needed open space."

That statement can not be supported, period. Not through official sources. Not through polling results. And, most importantly, not through election results. In short, the community never "desired" that "balance" -- a balance, by the way, that would quickly shift from "providing much-needed open space" to providing an amphitheater, community gardens, dog park, play fields, tot lot, picnic areas, public restroom, public parking lot, etc., to the tune of several million dollars -- yet, that "balance," according to the SOC, was the only reason "an in-town site was chosen over other locations."

As for, "making the project affordable to all income groups," the Tri-W project would have been the most expensive sewer project per capita in the history of the Untied States.


- - -

It blows me away that the Trib never reported on any of that. And the sad things is, they could report on it today, BECAUSE it is so interesting and relevant, but I guess the ol' Trib just doesn't care if a story is interesting, relevant, and extremely newsworty.


Mark said...

Prefix 528 has been doing his/her homework. Terrific!!

Keep studying and read the Federal C26 and Drought Solutions located on website and you should be able to understand what Tom, I and others already know.

It's "Schedule 80" that the COROH system used. That is a deep tube patented system which I found to be unavailable for use in the United States. My bad...

ECOfluid is a terrific pre-engineered patented Award winning end of the pipe technology which can be used in Los Osos if and when the consulting engineers give it a full review.
It costs much less than anything reviewed by Ripley and uses less energy than tratment technology review by Ripley due to design advantages which capitalizes on gravity and hydraulic forces, I'll be happy to share my assemblage of exhibits, just write me and ask. Other benefits include butare not limited to a much reduced footprint, fewer moving parts and the process is virtually odorless, so should the TRI-W be forced upon the citizens ECOfluid USBF(tm) would be the an ideal choice. The Biology portion of the treatment works is less that 15,000 sq. ft.

Please feel free to stop by "click" on the "how it works" tab for an animation and you can reach me by email to discuss that technology @ or by phone 602-740-7975. I'll be happy to discuss it and provide you or anyone lots of information and pricing on a 1MGD immediately and it won't cost a thing. I've already supplied same to the county several times back in March, April and recently to Mark Hutchins a few weeks ago for the EIR Scoping meetings, at no charge. The cost to construct an ECOfluid USBF(tm) equipped Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility that produces less than 7 mg/l of TIN is a fraction of the cost estimates what ever they are now provided by the county. Also USBF(tm) technology can handle low strength influent from a STEP/STEG by making the plant "smaller"... Despite what Dana Ripley wrote in his report regarding extended aeration not being able to handle it. That pesky technology...

So I know as do most in the industry that there are more advanced treatment technologies that to date have not been used as much as they could or should.
Most are all "pre-engineered" and some are patented.
After a telephonic meeting with the county's consulting engineer regarding ECOfluid, I decided to assist Tom Murphy in Los Osos.
They said they would "take a look at it in mid 2008".
Paavo said publically that he would review the RECLAMATOR proposal and technology in December 2006. To date we have not heard from him.

Why does it takes years to study, design something that your company makes its living designing and building.
Surely the use of technology is such that award winning designs could be spit out like sausages out of a linking machine...ECOfluid and AES can do it.
As "meat man" I am used to a much faster results and technology makes it possible for you to expect or rather demand faster results.

The EIR is unnecessary when the RECLAMATOR is used.
Septic tanks don't need one, neither does a device the same size which produces permeate that meets or exceeds USEPA MCLG's.

Technology makes it possible...

Technology never rests. -"Even technologies that become established may lose favor over time, as technological advances lead to obsolescence. In short technologies are subject to the same forces present in nature: those that cannot meet the demands of their environment fail, while those that adapt to changing technological, economic and regulatory climates can achieve long-standing success and survival in the market"

I am working with Tom Murphy because he developed and is the patented owner of the pre-engineered technology. That is PERFECT for Los Osos and Los Osos is PERFECT to test the "political forces" that influence the wastewater industry, nationally. The RECLAMATOR makes the "pipe" go away and all the environmental and costs associated with it...

Throughout my life I have always done more than one thing at a time, something I am proud to say. I also sell meat products since 1978.
I eat fish, beef, chicken, pork, veal, elk, venison and other exotic game meats not necessarily in that order.
So you could say I can service human need from at least two ends...

My agenda is protect the environment better than the conventional methods for less money follow the law, while I make a living.

My knowledge and understanding should be very useful to anyone wanting to learn more.
Sure, I like technology, don't you?
Should you have any question or concerns, I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Merry Christmas and may God continue to Bless you and yours.


Also this:

Ron Wrote:

"It blows me away that the Trib never reported on any of that. And the sad things is, they could report on it today, BECAUSE it is so interesting and relevant, but I guess the ol' Trib just doesn't care if a story is interesting, relevant, and extremely newsworty.


-Talk about Knowledgable, Institutional Knowledge and Understanding, Ron takes the cake, hands down!
I hope he is writing a book...

And finally-All the gold which is under or upon the earth is not enough to give in exchange for virtue.

Mike Green said...

Mark, do you believe in a carburetor that runs on water?

Mike said...

Truly a snakeoil salesman...!!!

Mike Green said...

From a Tom Murphy E-mail:
Mark, just think what is going on with the RECLAMATOR as similar to what happened to the guy that invented the carburetor that ran on water and what the government and oil companies did to stop that from coming onto the market. The RECLAMATOR is even bigger as it is destined to disrupt a $1 Trillion dollar wastewater industry paradigm which the federal, state and local governments feed off of."

Thats your guy?

Perhaps you would like to discus some physics?

OK, first question,
How much energy is required to break the hydrogen bond to oxygen in water?
What is the yield of energy produced by recombination of hydrogen and oxygen?
And why does that make the water carburetor impossible?

shoot dude, it's not rocket science!

Churadogs said...

Prefix 528 sez"Tom Murphy has made the claim that the Reclamator produces drinking water on multiple occassions."

Thanks for the added info. Now, back we go to definitions -- drinkable water, drinking water, by, as you noted Mr. Murphy said, by children in Africa?, inplying water standards waaaaayyy less than here.

If I understand Murphy's "plan" the whatever it is that comes out of the end of the reclamator is defined as . . . something or other, depending on who's doing the defining . . . and can be used in the garden (presume the RWQCB rules would only allow such outside the PZ and only as buried drip lines? i.e. not actually running on the surface and so in contact with humans), re=piped to flush your toilet, maybe wash the car -- oops, soon to illegal here in SLO county, and other uses. Is there an official name for that stuff? Clearly, not officially drinking water, Murphy uses the term "permeat," Briggs calls it "discharge" or "pollutants," . . . .

Hopefully, when the "review of alternative technologies" takes place, as promised, somebody will have some officially sanctioned for real take to the bank definitions by then??

Wait, this is Los Osos, WHAT AM I SAYING???

Sewertoons said...

mark said:
"…Los Osos is PERFECT to test the "political forces" that influence the wastewater industry, nationally."

Thanks, but no thanks. We have enough problems without YOU wanting to "test" more trouble for Los Osos. We do not need or want to be used by you.

Your product will be looked at, I am sure. But you had better get the data to Paavo. If your product isn't good enough to meet the standards, suing the RWQCB isn't going to buy you anything at all. Enjoy your 80 million sludge-covered brickbats on your way out of town …buh-byeeeeee! (And please don't litter.)

Mark said...

brickbat (plural brickbats)

(obsolete): A piece of brick used as a weapon, especially if thrown, or placed in something like a sock and used as a club.
(idiomatic) A criticism or uncomplimentary remark hurled at artwork or other recipient.
For example, it's quite common for magazines to have a section called Bouquets and Brickbats for compliments and criticisms.
Reason Magazine: Daily Brickbat[1]
Retrieved from ""
Categories: English nouns | Obsolete | English idioms

septic tank (plural septic tanks)

A small-scale watertight treatment system for domestic sewage in which the flow is slowed to allow sedimentation and sludge digestion by bacteria to take place
Australian rhyming slang for yank, American.

The past above- the future below;