Needed Clarifications Re: Central Street Culvert

To the Editor,

I would like to clarify some comments made in last week’s letter (Manchester Cricket, “Flooding and Other Issues with MBTS’ Current Central Street Culvert Expansion,” submitted by Susan Wadia-Els and published 6/20/25) on the Central Street Culvert Project.  

There were several misquotations taken from my appearance before the Manchester Conservation Commission hearing, which was also attended by the authors of that letter.  I had submitted my own letter to the Conservation Commission before the hearing that should be part of the public record.  Specifically:

• I did not say that “the calculations were seriously outdated.” Instead, I asked whether the hydraulic calculations, completed in 2016, had been updated with current tidal predictions.
• I did not say that “the project will seriously increase flooding.” Climate change is seriously increasing flooding, and I noted that this project is bucking the trend to enhance tidal protections among coastal communities.

• I did not recommend “installing a tide gate to protect the Town.” I recommended that a conceptual alternative with more water management options and a type of tide gate that does not inhibit fish passage be considered for further evaluation.

I appeared at the ConCom meeting on June 9th after discovering that the high-water elevation shown on the channel plans is three feet lower than what is shown on the culvert plans, and that the culvert plans are another three feet lower than what is shown on the Rotunda plans.

The current channel plans show that water remains within its banks, but this is not the case if the other elevations are correct. I wanted to be sure that the affected properties were properly warned.

The tide gate alternative includes fixing the bridge, raising the dam, and widening the gate; and was suggested as more of a small-town way of doing things.  It also provides a sanity check, because it appears that we are spending a lot of money and enduring a lot of inconvenience for relatively little gain.  The current project includes a new culvert to reduce the 100-year flood event on Sawmill Brook, even though tidal flooding is higher and more frequent.

The engineers hired by the town assured us that the hydraulic calculations sufficiently

addressed sea-level rise, and that a larger bridge would better facilitate fish passage.  They informed me that this project is just the first in a plan to replace other bridges along the Brook.  I was also made aware of plans to install a tidal barrier across the harbor entrance.  The vote subsequently passed to approve the project.

I urge all of you to get involved and attend the meetings where these projects are discussed.  I believe that it is essential for promoting a resident-focused town government.