Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I utterly object to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam. The proposed destruction of 5,700 ha. of National Parks including 1,300 ha. of Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and the ruining of 65 km. of wilderness rivers through periodic inundation is an outrage. It is also a gross violation of commitments undertaken through the gazettal of the National Parks in question and the responsibility implicit in UNESCO World Heritage Listing. These lands include certain Threatened Ecological Communities, eg. Grassy Box Woodland, as well as habitat for endangered and critically endangered species, including Regent Honey-eaters, and who knows what else, given that the environmental surveys were wilfully and demonstrably inadequate - a mere 3.5 hours to look for koalas, a mere day to look for platypus, for example. And according to a Federal Government estimation, at least 1,500 Aboriginal sites would be destroyed; nor have the Gundungurra Traditional Owners given Free, Prior and Informed consent for the Dam proposal to go ahead.
The choice of SMEC Engineering to assess environmental and cultural values was obviously calculated – and deeply cynical. The shabby and suspect nature of the EIS is further evidenced by the fact that the original, principled, ecologist was driven to resign and was replaced by a person with a conflict of interest with the proponent, Water NSW.
The NSW Government's attempted justification for raising the Dam wall is to protect human lives and property – or is it to house an extra 134,000 new residents on the flood plain? But approximately 45% of floodwaters affecting the floodplain come from areas outside the Warragamba Dam catchment, and a combination of a number of options other than raising the Dam wall has been recommended as the most cost-effective way to mitigate flood risk. Future weather is unpredictable – look at the floods in Germany! Sanity dictates that you don't keep building on flood plains.
But the basic reasons not to proceed with the proposal remain environmental and cultural. This land, these wild rivers, are not the current NSW Government's to destroy. This land belongs to the people of this State, with particular reference to the Traditional Owners, and to the world - not to mention the plants and animals living in the threatened areas. Simplistic slogans such as that plants are more important than people represent specious attempts to ignore the NSW Government's responsibilities to preserve the integrity of what remains of natural heritage. The profit of developers cannot be allowed to take precedence over environmental values at almost every turn.

Yours sincerely,

Dear Planning Department,
I write to comment on the E.I.S for the Warragamba Dam Raising project. I consider that the E.I.S is fundamentally flawed and inadequate, and I oppose the dam.
I write as a Sydney resident who visits the Blue Mountains region for various reasons, including tourism and bushwalking, on a regular basis.
Respectfully I am deeply concerned that the E.I.S has not addressed, or adequately addressed, alternative options which have been proposed by independent experts to raising the Warragamba dam. In my respectful opinion, this makes the E.I.S fundamentally flawed.
I am also deeply concerned that the E.I.S:
a. Effectively minimizes the destruction and damage that will be visited upon the World Heritage Area and National Park. It doesn't properly acknowledge, or address, the estimated 65 km of wilderness rivers and 5,700 ha of national park,including 1,300 ha within the World Heritage Area, which will be innudated by raising the wall.
b. doesn't address, or adequately address, the detrimental impact and damage to habitats for critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species, such as the regent honey eater.
c. doesn't adequately address, and/or minimises, the threat and damage from the raising of the walll to threatened ecological communities and unique fauna species.
d. Appears to dismiss the many concerns and objections to the raising of the dam by many people, including based on the damage it would visit to First nations cultural heritage, ecological communities, threats to fauna and flora, the overall costs and that the dam wall itself won't prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
There is considerable expert, independent comment which has proposed options other than raising the Warragamba Dam and as proposed in the E.I.S. Respectfully, the alternative options should be properly considered, and accepted.
Thank you for considering my comment.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam.
Drowning rivers and existing shorelines, destroying cultural sites, threatening endangered plant and animal species. And all just for more houses in western Sydney.
As someone fortunate enough to hike the Nattai, Kowmunga and Wollindilly rivers, and camp in these areas, i know exactly what will be lost for ever, all for the greed of people who will never walk in this area and connect with this landscape.

To whom it may concern,

Please stop the plans to raise the warragamba dam.
The cultural and natural significance of the bushland which will be impacted behind the dam far outweighs and benefits to society.
Please take a stance which values our biodiversity and ecosystems and not developers pockets.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the dam.
The proposal to raise the wall is politically fuelled and lacks science and evidence. Recent flooding downstream has been caused by inflows below the dam. This means that raising the wall will not prevent flooding. All it will do is falsely encourage more development on floodplains, that will eventually need to be bought out just like Lismore and other places that are now non-livable spaces due to climate change.
We need to move to living with our environment and the climate that we have changed. This means having a responsive and adaptive approach to water management. In forecast wet years the target level of all dams needs to be lower than in forecast dry years. Keeping dams full in wet years, when there is little demand for water downstream is purely greed that is enabled by the corporatisation of public infrastructure and water. Those that 'own' and seek to control water should be at least part liable for the damages caused when their greed keeps dams overfull. If Sydney Water and Water NSW are making profit from capturing water, then just like all businesses they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.
Rather than raising the wall, homeowners should be encouraged to become more water self-sufficient. How much water is wasted in this country? If the funds invested in raising the wall were invested in decentralised water storage with every home having a rainwater tank, how much would this reduce the need for riverine capture and storage that places people at risk? If all the leaking pipes and outdated infrastructure across the water distribution network were modernised, how much would be saved without destroying precious environment?
Lastly, it is clear that this government has no regard for the people it supposedly represents. How many submissions in opposition are needed to make a difference to this political, unscientific decision? Whose votes are you trying to buy? The people on the floodplain know that raising the wall wont make a difference? How much money will this government 'earn' in political donations by making this unpopular and unfounded decision of raising the wall?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Objection to the Proposed Raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall (SSI-8441)


Raising the dam wall by 14 metres makes absolutely no sense to me, particularly in view of the fact that the proposal is flawed in so many areas - as outlined by the experts in relevant critical areas of concern.

The benefits of the proposal are exaggerated and will result in more development on the flood plain, putting lives at risk in the future than previously.

My other concerns are:

1. The potential loss of World Heritage listing for the Greater Blue Mountains National Park.


2. Loss of woodland ecosystems, affecting critically endangered species such as the Regent Honeyeater.

3. Loss of First Nations Cultural Sites - an essential part of the Gundungurra people’s 40,000 to 50,000-year cultural history. Literally, this would be cultural dispossession.

4. The Warragamba Catchment is rarely the major factor in flooding in the Hawkesbury Nepean area. The greatest flows originate in the Cordeaux, Cataract, Avon, Nepean, Grose, Macdonald, and Colo Rivers and their expansive catchment areas.

5. The proposal will cause a false sense of security, increased floodplain development, and future disaster similar to the Wivenhoe Dam disaster on the Brisbane River in 2011.


Thank you for your consideration of my objections to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.


Yours sincerely,

I am writing to object to the above proposal.

So ill-considered is this proposal that should it go ahead UNESCO has flagged its intention to pursue withdrawing the World Heritage Listing of the Blue Mountains. The degree of ecological damage to the Blue Mountains Heritage Area and communities upstream, the devastating implications for innumerable sites of cultural significance to Indigenous people of the area, and destruction of habitat and loss of vulnerable and unique flora and fauna are all grossly downplayed and inadequately reflected.

The premise consistently forwarded for the wall raising, concern for public safety of communities, for life and limb, property, livelihoods and infrastructure downstream, constitutes a blatant misdirection. This burst of civic responsibility, announced loudly and paraded to be applauded, is nothing less than a Trojan horse; within its belly reside a legion of developers oh-so-eager to plunder newly ‘rescued’ areas, erstwhile potentially flood affected green space, and transform them into yet more fuel-dependant heatsinks of unrelieved housing and paved surfaces. Such developments already exist in many flood-prone areas of the Hawkesbury/Nepean. It’s most certainly the case that concern for catastrophic outcomes have been nowhere in sight when $’s have lit up the eyes of the unscrupulous in the past.

The language employed by advocates of this piece of 'Critical State Significant Infrastructure' is highly emotive and inaccurate. The Warragamba catchment is only 1 of 4 catchments that feed the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain. Raising the wall will not protect communities on occasions of extreme and unpredictable rain events. The false security of the claim that it will do so, will be used to green-light more development on/adjacent to the floodplain and put more life and property at risk. Experiences of this year surely counsel most emphatically that such events, the devastating consequence of climate change, are an alarming present reality.

At an estimated cost of $1.6 billion this proposal will not put fewer, but potentially many more lives at risk; will not mitigate property and infrastructure damage but multiply the social, emotional and financial impact of such damage. Cheek by jowl housing estates will proliferate on land newly and falsely declared 'floodproof'. And the cost upstream will be loss of priceless Indigenous cultural sites and native flora and fauna (perhaps to the point of extinction) and the inundation and desecration of a precious environment of World Heritage value.

This proposal must not approved..

Yours sincerely

see attachment

My name is Dr Jo Tibbitts. I have the privilege of living in Blackheath, NSW, 2785 on the narrow ridge between the Kanimbla and Megalong Valleys to the west and the Grose Valley to the East. In the last two years I have given $20 to the NSW Labour Party and $60 to The Animal Justice Party.

I would like to acknowledge that I live on the traditional lands of the Dharug and Gundungurra people, and pay my respect to Elders past, present and future.
I object completely to any raising of the Warragamba dam wall for the following reasons…
1. The Blue Mountains National Park has 100s of 1000s of Australian Native animals and birds including many on the brink of extinction (Regent honey eater, Koalas, kangaroos/wallabies and Emus). Flooding of the area upstream of the dam is going to kill many of those animals and birds.
2. The Blue Mountains National Park is an important ‘tree sink’ for Sydney and the surrounding area. One of the conclusions of COP26 were that to combat climate change we need to plant trillions more native trees and replant forests. We should be increasing the pristine forests of the Blue Mountains National Park and definitely not flooding any of the land so that trees die.
3. No further development should be allowed in the Sydney basin. We need to preserve and expand the green belts and especially preserve the koala and kangaroo habitats of south west Sydney to combat the massive air pollution generated in the city and surrounding areas. Your wanton development and clearing of native bush has caused a massive climate crisis. Getting rid of one quarter to one half of BMNP is going to make the climate crisis worse.
4. The Blue Mountains National park is personally very important to me and the other people who live in this beautiful region. The bush in this area has healing powers. You can feel it when in a train climbing from Lapstone to Glenbrook. The energy changes. You relax and think I’m home. Any increase of the dam wall/flooding of the bush is going to adversely affect that energy and our home.
5. Rightly so this area is a world heritage area. Any increase in the dam wall/flooding of the bush is going to breach Australia’s obligation under the World Heritage Convention.
6. Money should be put into cleaning up the rivers in the Blue Mountains National Park not flooding them.
7. When I was first looking for a home to buy, I looked in Agnes Banks. I was told that it was prone to flooding and was encouraged to look elsewhere. There shouldn't have been development in flood plains. But the NSW governments have given developers free reign to develop/destroy all over sydney and been negligant in making sure it is safe to build in these locations. The flood danger will be made worse by raising the dam. Sydney basin is like a bath with many taps and one very small plug hole. Reducing the flow from one tap will not stop flooding.
8. The EIS of this project is a joke and needs to be redone by competent independent experts. Many experts have pointed out its many flaws like e.g. the effect of the 2019 fires have not yet been properly investigated so true status of the park and its wildlife is unknown.
9. The traditional owners (Dharug and Gundungurra people) have a continuous and deep connection to their Country and that this is of great cultural significance to Aboriginal people, both locally and in the region. Aboriginal Elders need to have a veto vote on what happens to the Blue Mountains National Park
Yours sincerely,

see attached

This is a personal submission from Harry Burkitt of 17 Cottle Road Bullaburra 2784.

The PIR as published is not a valid ammentment to the original EIS. The EIS did not contain basic details as to the operation and structure of the raised dam wall and as a corollary, the associated impacts and perceived benifits both up and downstream of the proposed infrastructure. The PIR is not a valid cure to these fundimental failings of the EIS. Indeed, such fundamental flaws in the EIS go to the substance and validity of most claims and mitigation measures proposed in both the EIS itself and the recently published PIR.

The Planning Minister should reject the proposed development on this basis.

I have not made a reportable political donation in the past two years.

I consent to this submission being made public.

Regards,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the environmental impact statement for the Warragamba Dam Raising (the EIS). I have been visiting the national parks of the Blue Mountains for over 40 years with family, friends and clubs such as the Sydney Bushwalkers and the Catholic Bushwalkers. Over this time, I have formed a close connection with the Blue Mountains, in particular the valleys of the Cox, Kowmung, Nattai and Wollondilly valleys that will be most impacted by this proposal. I do not support the raising of Warragamba Dam due to the impacts on national parks and world heritage values and because alternatives with lesser environmental impact are available.
I agree that a comprehensive strategy to protect people, houses and other infrastructure in flood prone areas of the Hawkesbury Nepean needs to be developed. However, the proposal to raise the height of Warragamba dam is not the best option to achieve this outcome for the following reasons:
1. national parks and a world heritage area are supposed to be places where native plants, animals and heritage values are protected in perpetuity. The dam raising proposal treats these areas as expendable.
2. government consent authorities approved housing and infrastructure on floodplains with the knowledge that providing a safe urban environment would be expensive. Therefore, Government has the responsibility to make the necessary investments in the urban environment rather than arguing that damaging national parks and a world heritage area is preferred because it is a cheaper option.
3. a similar level of flood mitigation with less environmental damage could be achieved by operating Warragamba dam at a lower full supply level (FSL) than the current FSL in La Nina periods
I will now deal with these issues in more detail.
The responsibility for approving urban infrastructure on the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain lies with local and/or the NSW government. The consent role for specific developments often lies with local government. However, these planning decisions are informed by policies developed by the NSW government. When approving urban infrastructure on a floodplain, the consent authorities knew that additional measures such as house design and flood proof transport infrastructure will be needed to create a safe urban environment. This necessarily means that urban development of floodplains will be expensive. The dam raising proposal is presented as the most cost effective option, but does not address the cost of destroying heritage values in national parks. This is not acceptable. The dam raising proposal has high environmental impact and presenting it as the preferred option on the basis that it is cheaper option is another example of government walking away from responsibilities incurred by allowing development on a flood plain in the first place.
The flood risk on the Hawkesbury Nepean has resulted from urban land use planning decisions that were made with the knowledge that managing this risk would be expensive. Thus, government has a responsibility to make the necessary investment to mitigate this risk without damaging national parks. This could be achieved by operating Warragamba Dam at a lower full supply level (FSL) than the current FSL during La Nina periods. This should be the preferred option if the government considers that Warragamba dam should play a role in flood mitigation.
The dam raising proposal reduces but does not eliminate flood risk. For example, a higher Warragamba dam would provide little flood mitigation capacity if there were two floods in quick succession. Another limitation of the current proposal is that it does nothing to mitigate flood risk from catchments other than Warragamba, such as the Nepean and Grose Rivers. I understand that the Warragamba catchment contributes less than 60% of the flows to floods in western Sydney. Given that flooding is still a risk even if the dam raising proposal was to proceed, flood mitigation measures such as the provision of infrastructure, voluntary property acquisition and the modification of dwellings to reduce the flood damage will still be required. In fact, it is a reasonable argument that the government has a responsibility to provide flood proof evacuation routes and to purchase flood prone properties if requested given that government approved the development of these flood plains in the first place. The current proposal does not seem to adequately address the need for other expensive flood mitigation measures will still be needed even if the dam raising proposal was to proceed.
I would now like to comment of the heritage values that will be affected by the dam raising.
The Blue Mountains was inscribed as world heritage in recognition of its outstanding universal value for its biodiversity and evidence of evolutionary processes. The area also has considerable cultural heritage value. Raising Warragamba dam will damage the natural and cultural values of the Blue Mountains, which would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The EIS attempts to rationalise this damage by saying that only a small area of world heritage would be affected. This approach ignores the fact that specific values of the world heritage area would be disproportionally affected. These include:
1. National parks and world heritage areas are supposed to be places where heritage is protected in perpetuity. Treating reserves a ‘sacrificial lambs’ violates this principle.
2. The Camden White Gum population in the Kedumba valley. A considerable proportion of the only remaining population of Camden White Gums will be affected by the dam raising proposal. This loss directly affects the world heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains, where its eucalypt diversity is recognised as having outstanding universal value. There are no options to offset this impact. Camden White Gum is entirely restricted to Hawkesbury Nepean catchment. The populations along the Nepean River are mostly disturbed and not suitable for inclusion in a national park or world heritage area. Further, the populations of Camden White Gums that used to occur in the Burragorang valley were submerged when Warragamba Dam was completed many decades ago.
3. Riverine forests along the Cox, Kowmung, Nattai and Wollondilly rivers. Riverine forests across NSW have been heavily cleared and/or affected by weeds that readily spread along river corridors. Riverine forests that are in relatively good condition such as those of the Blue Mountains are of higher value than the more typical disturbed examples. The riverine forests affected by the dam raising include good examples of the River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains, which is a critically endangered ecological community.
4. Regent Honeyeater habitat. This is a critically endangered species and its habitat along the Wollondilly River is in good condition. This is in contrast to much of the remaining Regent Honeyeater habitat highly fragmented, more disturbed habitat in much of the range of this species. The high quality habitat is likely to be important for a species like the Regent Honeyeater that is in severe decline and habitat degradation associated with this proposal would represent a considerable loss. Another indicator of the quality of this habitat is the presence of several other woodland birds that are listed as vulnerable. These include Speckled Warblers, Diamond Firetails, Hooded Robins, Black-chinned Honeyeaters and Brown Treecreepers.
5. Approximately 430 hectares of good condition White Box Yellow Box Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland. Again, many of the remaining examples of this critically endangered ecological community are fragmented and/or disturbed.
6. A substantial number of additional endangered or vulnerable plants and animals will be affected.
7. The Kowmung River which has been declared a ‘Wild River’ in recognition of its pristine condition
8. Aboriginal heritage values. The discussion of Aboriginal heritage in the EIS is focussed on recorded sites. This is one element of heritage, but other aspects such as connection to country or the potential importance of landscape features such as rivers do not appear to have been addressed. This aspect of the EIS can only be adequately addressed through consultation with the relevant indigenous groups. I note that the Legislative Council Select Committee has recommended that the Warragamba Dam raising should not proceed should Registered Aboriginal Parties not give prior consent. This seems to be a sound approach.
In conclusion, I do not support the raising of Warragamba Dam because:
1. The national parks and world heritage areas that would be affected have considerable heritage values that government has committed to protect in perpetuity. The government is now walking away from that responsibility.
2. There is a feasible alternative that includes operating Warragamba Dam at a lower full supply level during La Nina periods, the provision of infrastructure and floodplain planning and management strategies.
3. The cost of operating Warragamba Dam at a lower full supply level and providing infrastructure should be recognised as a consequence of governments approving urban development on flood prone land.
4. The dam raising proposal cannot eliminate the risk of major floods because it does not address other catchments such as the Nepean and Grose Rivers, or successive flood events in the Warragamba catchment.

To whom it may concern,
As a resident of the Blue Mountains for some 22 years, like many other people in this community, I feel privileged to live in the midst of a unique and beautiful World Heritage listed part of Australia. However, over-development and poorly-thought out projects, such as the raising of the Warragamba dam wall, pose many unnecessary threats to the area.
After much research into the subject, I believe that the evidence is overwhelming.
Firstly, raising the Warragamba dam wall by up to and above 14 metres, and consequently raising the water level of Lake Burragorang, would inevitably degrade the physical and biological features of the rivers and creeks upstream from the dam.
It seems certain that some local species of flora and fauna would be endangered, including already threatened species such as the Regents Honeyeater.
The possible loss of World Heritage status for the Blue Mountains National Park would also have a negative impact on tourism and the economy of the local community
I am alarmed to find that the original EIS into this project has many systemic failures:
During the summer of 2019/20 we Blue Mountains residents lived through bushfires that devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Yet apparently, no post-bushfire field surveys of the Burragorang valley have been undertaken since then.
Threatened species surveys have been inadequate or incomplete.
This is even though an estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project.
This includes:
• The Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
• Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
• A number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
The Kowmung River, located in the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment and running for 80 kilometres mostly within Kanangra-Boyd National Park and the Blue Mountains National Park, was declared in 2005 to be:
"sufficiently hydrologically natural to be declared a wild river. The biological condition of the river is very good; the results of an analysis of invertebrates in the river were consistent with results from some of the most pristine waterways in the region. The river is predicted
habitat for the Macquarie perch, a threatened fish".
Ref: KOWMUNG RIVER
KANANGRA-BOYD NATIONAL PARK
Wild River Assessment
Parks and Wildlife Division
Department of Environment and Conservation
June 2005
Only 27% of the potential impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report has come under severe criticism from the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
In fact, over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites could be inundated by the dam raising. This explains why the Gundungarra traditional owners have not given their free and informed consent for the dam project to proceed.
The following supports this view:
“Numerous Indigenous cultural heritage sites, belonging to the Gundungurra people of the southern Blue Mountains, are also located within national parks that would be inundated by the dam wall raising. Delicate cave art, rare eucalypt scar trees, dreaming waterholes and marker sites are amongst the cultural heritage sites that would be submerged by a raised dam wall. An Aboriginal Place application was submitted to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage by traditional owners earlier this year in a further attempt to protect their cultural sites from the proposal”. Source: Letter to NSW Premier signed by over 20 prominent scientists, park managers and former environment ministers, 10 October 2018
It seems that alternative options for preventing flood damage were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
Most remarkably, on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. It seems obvious that raising the dam wall, to whatever height, will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
A logical and responsible alternative is to severely restrict any further housing developments on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain area, and other options are available to protect the existing floodplain communities.
The recent report released by the NSW Government, called a 'Preferred Infrastructure Report', and another document called a 'Response to Submissions' in no way satisfies me that the deep public opposition to this project has been treated seriously.
Most disturbingly, the report has apparently announced NSW Government intention's to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
Also, serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
Yours sincerely,

My objections to the proposal to raise the dam wall are:


1. Inordinate spending on a poorly conceived stop-gap addition to a wall that was never designed for such an addition is NOT a solution for years and years of ignoring known flood patterns in the flood plain of the Nepean-Hawkesbury system. Greed and short-term gain should not be paid for from the public purse.
As a child, I had etched into my consciousness the scope of major floods, and
then, in horror, have watched on as development has proceeded in areas that I
remember being inundated. The natural function of a major flood plain has
been ignored. The solution is NOT to further the folly.
The only viable solution to the problem of future flooding in the Nepean-
Hawkesbury flood-plain is to create evacuation plans and develop infra-
structure that will accommodate the necessary movement to higher ground,
and to buy back the most vulnerable properties. Wise planning would not be
projecting population consolidation in flood-prone areas as inevitable. Good
planning would have been incorporating intensive crop-growing in such fertile,
market-accessible lands. The land’s function is flood plain. Don’t throw more
tax-payer money after an empty dream of stopping the inevitable at the
expense of further wrongs.

2. The impacts of raising the wall of the Warragamba Dam are totally
unacceptable in terms of environmental and cultural desecration. We are no
longer living in oblivion of the genocide and cultural arrogance of our forebears.
I cannot live with more of the same being undertaken in today’s world.

Specifically,
a) Upstream impact on wild rivers such as the lower sections of the Kowmung
River (now a declared a ‘wild river’ with pristine ecological values).
b) Endangering, yet again, 6000 hectares of World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park and the flora and fauna therein, as well as the highly valued World Heritage listing itself.
c) 1200 nominated sites of great cultural, natural and historical significance in the Burragorang Valley. We all, these days, value such remnants of the original fabric and culture of our land. We know about these sites now and value preserving this remaining indigenous history of the Gandangarra
people. We do not want to perpetuate the crimes of of forefathers.
3. The floods that affect the Nepean-Hawkesbury flood plain are not solely caused by waters upstream of Warragamba Dam. The 2021 floods, for example, had little effect on Camden as rain was not falling in the Robertson area (headwaters of the Nepean). When this area is affected, no heightened dam wall would help in the dispersal/retention of flood waters.

4. The timing of water release is all. In 2021 the waters were not released early enough.

5. The original EIS is totally inadequate, neither does it address the already fragile ecosystem following the bushfires of 2019/2020.

6. This proposal is almost laughable in the face of climate change which cannot
be ignored.

7. I do remember accounts of the concrete pour in the Warragamba Dam construction in which the concrete kept disappearing into ground cavities. Finally, an arbitrary call was made to go ahead, even though the required substance of the above ground pour was not established. Although I obviously don’t know the technical details of this, the memory is strong, and others raised questions as to the now existing dam wall possibly not being as strong as was intended. Clearly,
not a great base for further construction. I understand that this could well be dismissed as ‘hearsay’, but it was very clear to me that the adults holding the knowledge were unhappy to say the least, scathing of the operators, and worried about future safety.

To whom it may concern,
Please register my strong opposition to the current proposal to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam.
This proposal is unnecessary and will cause unacceptable environmental damage.
Thousands of hectares of wilderness sheltering rare species of flora and fauna and endangered ecological communities will be destroyed or degraded by this project.
These areas have already been protected in perpetuity in state, national and international law. Disregarding these protections is not only fundamentally wrong but it sets an alarming precedent for other natural areas that are supposedly protected forever.
As a bushwalker I have visited the Kowmung river and would like to do so again and show it to others.
The environmental impact statement has failed to adequately assess possible alternative flood mitigation measures that may prove to be less expensive to implement.
In any event the raising of the dam wall will not stop the flooding of the downstream areas as 45% of the catchment's water comes from other sources such as the Colo river.
The finished project could well engender a false sense of security to those residing on the floodplain.
It represents a politically motivated sledgehammer approach to an important issue.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
My name is Richard Madigan and I live in the beautiful Blue Mountains. I am totally shocked and disheartened about this plan to raise the dam wall. There are many araes in which I have deep concern but will limit my ubmission to the following:
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is a world class National Park - in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall, resulting in damage to natural and cultural values, would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

If the wall is raised, 4,700 hectares of World Heritage national park, 1,800 hectares of Wilderness Areas and 65km of wilderness rivers will be forever scarred from sedimentation, erosion and the invasion of exotic plants. This will place under threat:
• The Kowmung River – a protected ‘Wild River’
• Eucalyptus species of Outstanding Universal Value under World Heritage listing
• Fragile Ecological Communities (notably Grassy Box Woodland)
• Habitat for Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population
And
• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
For these reasons I am firmly against this proposal.
Yours sincerely,

see attachment

see attachment

As per the user requested, created submission.

I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam.

The revised EIS report dismisses previous community and government agency concerns, particularly the health and quality of our water needs delivered by Sydney Water.
The revised EIS also justifies wrongly the destruction of a World Heritage Site, the Blue Mountains, and is considering changing its area boundaries to accommodate the project, in an attempt to avoid Australia’s international obligations of protection of a World Heritage Listed site.

This is the largest destruction of conservation lands ever proposed, let alone approved in NSW. The NSW government openly announced it would ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, again a serious concern.

The report ignores Traditional Owners wishes and their desire to protect their sacred sites.
Of concern is the government’s ability to meet the biodiversity offset costs. Labelling the damage to environmental values as temporary rather than permanent could mean no accountability for appropriate offsets.

Critical reviews of the NSW Government's revised EIS are alarming by various agencies, organisations, and government departments and questions incorrect assumptions, data, transparency, credibility of this document and the process.

I encourage the government to investigate strategies for flood mitigation and consider these fully and impartially before any proposal to raise the dam wall is advanced that destroys a heritage listed site, considering that such an action will still not solve completely the flooding problem on the floodplains of western Sydney. The fact that raising the dam wall will only have a 50% success rate, as downstream rivers will still flood properties, indicates other alternatives must also be investigated.

Labelling the project as ‘Critical State Significant Infrastructure’ strips the rights of the community to challenge a future decision in the courts and that is a serious concern and creates already a flawed process with absolutely no accountability to protect a unique world heritage site of immense environmental and cultural values. The negative impacts to this pristine area will be permanent and irreversible.

Please refer to the attached PDF file for my detailed response as our complete submission.

Martin Derby