Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern
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.
Yours sincerely
Linda Hager

I consider the Warragamba Dam EIS, Project Infrastructure Report and Submissions Report to be inadequate for justifying this project. Please see the attachment for details.

Burragorang Heritage Society Inc object to the Raising of Warragamba Dam Wall.
Burragorang Heritage Society members are residents and descendants of Burragorang and Yerranderie families who were removed from their ancestral homes and properties in the 1950's when they were acquired as Burragorang was cleared for inundation for the catchment of Warragamba Dam.
Raising Warragamba Dam Wall will not prevent the flooding of the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley. The Warragamba Catchment System is only a part of the broader catchment system including the Nepean, Grose,Colo and McDonald Rivers which are all major contributors to the downstream flooding. The creation of the Blue Mountains National Park and our World Heritage Area should afford all the protection needed for the area but instead it seems our Government are abandoning the security of our biodiversity and threatened species for development. We have so much to lose and our Government is showing a lack of respect in disregarding the importance and security of our National Parks and World Heritage areas. This project represents the largest destruction of conservation lands ever proposed.
Significant procedural failures and a flawed EIS process did not include any assessment of European Heritage and only a token assessment of First Nations Gundungurra sites. Burragorang is part of the Gundungurra Creation Story and had European settlement from the 1830s and becoming Sydneys tourist destination before it was inundated. Warragamba Dam was built 'to provide a reliable water supply for Sydney' and raising the dam wall and creating temporary inundation will threaten the water supply quality, the biodiversity and impact on the management of the area. We do not want to risk any impacts on this pristine area and urge the Government to seek alternate solutions to minimise the risk of flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and retain our heritage sites, biodiversity ,threatened species and ecosystems.

Submission to Major Projects- Warragamba Dam Wall raising

Noelene Mainwaring
11 Vanderville street, The Oaks 2570


To whom it may concern.
I am against the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.

Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will not stop the flooding of the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley. 45% of the flood water comes from other rivers below the Warragamba Dam wall.

If the wall is raised the flood waters upstream, even if periodical, will leave residual damage to the upstream rivers, including the declared pristine wild river the Kowmung. There will be water quality damage and erosion. The Camden White Gum tree and the Regent Honeyeaters birds are already threatened. Blue Mountains National Park was inscribed on the UNESCO world heritage list in the year 2000. The UNESCO title should be respected. The offsets proportionate to these impacts that will happen upstream does not compensate for the damage.

If the Dam wall is raised many European heritage sites and over 1500 Gundungurra aboriginal heritage sites relating to their Dreamtime will be erased forever.

There are currently 130,000 residents working and living on the Hawkesbury Nepean flood plain. These developments should never have been approved. Older low lying properties should have been relocated before the completion of Warragamba Dam wall in 1960. If the dam wall is raised there will eventually be more development on the flood plain. In 2015, Stuart Ayres, Project Minister for Western Sydney, declared ‘there will be urban development on the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain as far as the eye can see’ if the wall goes ahead.

Other alternatives could be lowering the full capacity level at the dam wall. Making more use of the desalination plant, which was built in 2010 as environmentalist Tim Flannery said Warragamba Dam will never be full again. Buy back low lying properties.
Future building of bridges and roads, eg the Windsor bridge, could be built flood proof as the MacArthur bridge at Camden was built in the 1970’s.

If the Dam wall raising is approved the construction will be an enormous impact to the residents to the town of Warragamba. There will be 300 heavy and 500 light truck movements per day for 4 to 5 years. Trucks will also travel through the towns of The Oaks, Picton and Tahmoor. The roads will not cope.

My ancestors settled in Burragorang Valley in 1832. My family was forced to leave for the flooding to make Warragamba Dam. Many people sacrificed their homes to give Sydney water. There were homesteads, churches, cemeteries, schools, public halls, post offices, farm properties, 18 holiday guest houses etc, all destroyed or relocated. The remainder of Burragorang Valley needs to be protected.

Yours sincerely,
Noelene Mainwaring

Please find my submission attached

The proposal to raise Warragamba Dam has unacceptable environmental impacts and should not proceed. The proposed dam wall raising would result in unacceptable impacts to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area upstream, including to sensitive riparian areas and threatened species and communities, and should be rejected.

The proposal to raise Warragamba Dam has unacceptable environmental impacts and should be rejected. In particular, there will be unacceptable environmental and heritage impacts from flood storage inundation of Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and wilderness areas upstream of the dam. This includes impacts to numerous threatened species and communities. The EIS acknowledges there is insufficient information to fully understand biodiversity impacts from temporary inundation. The Environmental Impact Assessment is flawed and contains numerous errors throughout, and is not of a sufficient standard to properly assess impacts. Previous submissions do not appear to have been addressed or factored in to update assessments.

I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam.
The raising of the dam is inadequate flood mitigation, the Hawkesbury is being fed by other creeks and rivers which will still flood the area when extreme rain events are happening.
More responsible alternatives need to be considered before NSW Government spend Billions of tax payers money on a dud project that does not guarantee the safety of the people on the flood plains.
Once the dam wall is raised, the dam can still spill! With more extreme weather events to be expected, the dam wall will not be the solution to flooding. Why not lower the water when extreme rain is expected and have better roads so that people on the flood plains have better escape routes.
The raising of the dam wall will cause irreversible destruction to this protected area of great ecological and indigenous importance.
- The area which will be affected is part of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area and has several levels of protection including UNESCO World Heritage listing, National Park and the recognition of the Kowmung as a wild river, amongst other protections afforded to this very beautiful and important area. To me, these protections alone have enough value to not allow the raising of the dam.

Why a government is even contemplating to ignore all these protections is beyond me and is against the obligations of the government under the World Heritage Convention.
- I do not want the government to spend an estimate of $4 billion (including off sets for destroyed habitat) of tax payers money to destroy an protected area, which has such great value for native animals, recreation, local jobs, tourism, bushwalking, etc

- Bio diversity : the Blue Mountains have a number of flora of Outstanding Value and several species of flora and fauna and habitat for Endangered and Critically Endangered native species such as the Regent Honeyeater and some types of endangered Eucalyptus trees.


- It is important that we learn from the past and that we value and respect Aboriginal Cultural sites, it is unknown how many sites will be affected. Once the area is flooded, these sites will forever be destroyed and this will be a great loss to for all. It is time to recognise and protect the heritage value of Aboriginal Cultural sites.

- World Heritage Listing
The World Heritage Site has been downgraded due to the devastating 2019/2020 bushfires.
It is now in the second lowest category, from a site of “good with some concerns” to a site of ‘significant concern’.

If we don’t protect what we still have in the Greater Blue Mountains, we risk our World Heritage Listing which will be a devastating outcome for both nature and our local economy.

I strongly oppose the raising of the dam.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this submission.

Kind regards,
Nathalie Verellen

The details of my submission are in the attachment.

12th December 2022
Warragamba Dam Wall Raising Project

This submission is to express a strong opposition to the proposal of raising the Warragamba Dam Wall, and also offer a safe, scientifically proven, environmentally and culturally beneficial alternative that will provide equal if not superior safety and resilience for the affected communities from extreme weather events now and into the future.

The impact of raising the dam wall on the environment, on habitat loss and on sacred site desecration runs much further than the 65km of wilderness streams that would be inundated by the wall raising. This area is the home to 48 threatened plants and animal species. At a time when habitat loss through bushfires is extensive, removing another 65km of wilderness streams is unfathomable. For Gundungurra people the inundation will destroy or significantly impact hundreds of specific sacred sites and more broadly drown the land they have walked and sat on for thousands of years. When so little of pristine cultural lands exist, it would be a tragedy to allow this project to proceed knowing its devastating impact.

As a Not-For-Profit community organisation, Regen Action would like to offer an alternative solution to the dam wall raising that preliminary analysis has shown will provide the same flood mitigation requirements. That is to implement a broad-scale regeneration of the catchment area in question – approximately 1.61 million acres of eligible land. Through the implementation of Nature Based Solutions (a Regeneration technique), vast amounts of water is able to be stored in the landscape and this system enables a retention of flood velocity and volume during inundations, and in times of drought can provide enhanced potable water security to the Greater Sydney area.

Whilst this outcome of using Nature Based Solutions in Landscape Regeneration adequately delivers flood mitigation and water security it simultaneously has been recognised as a highly effective solution for bushfire and drought resilience, water storage and filtration, retention of top-soils and reversing desertification. The capacity for this project to capture vast amounts of carbon is also significant and the improvement of soils and increased fertility to farming lands will bring greater prosperity to farmers and greater nutrition to consumers.

Economically this solution is also an extremely viable and attractive proposition with current estimates at around one fifth of the cost of the dam wall raising. Therefore, we bring attention to the NSW Government for consideration the importance of this proposal as having both the best financial and environmental outcomes.

This alternative proposal has the capacity to become a world leading regeneration model especially as we have recently created a symbiotic collaboration with the Independent Council of Ecosystem Restoration (ICER) which is a recently convened panel of world leading scientists with strong credentials in hydrology and geomorphology. As an additional benefit not only does this panel have the latest research and data that validates our claim, they are also prepared to assist in evaluating the proposal.

Regen Action also has support for this proposal from the local Gundungurra community, our rural Chamber of Commerce and also the Shire development advocates by way of the Southern Highlands Key Stakeholders Group (SHKSG).

Regen Action would like to open discussions and offer our support to facilitate a feasibility study into this alternative to the dam wall raising, and suggest a collaboration with WaterNSW to assess the evidence surrounding this proposal.


Kind regards,


Kirstine McKay
Chair - Regen Action Wingecarribee.
Ph: 0404004307
[email protected]

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Firstly, on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
Then there are the serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water. As well as the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee regarding changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
Finally, there are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Regarding raising the dam wall i am against this proposal.
the wall height of the dam has already been raised once.
there are numerous other water sources that enter the nepean / hawksbury catchment areas.
The population of the sydney basin has increased over many years and more properties being built on flood zones. That should have never happened.
with the increase of of population in Sydney basin the government has also failed to increase new water catchment/ water production.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my concerns over raising the dam wall. Given that there are alternative options, this seems like environmental folly. Parts of the national parks threatened by this project are rightly protected inder he National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
I feel strongly that someone needs to stand up for trees including unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum. Trees matter. I know they cannot speak for themselves, but that does not mean we can ignore their importance. Their loss would, to my mind, be akin to criminal destruction in global a biodiversity crisis.
Furthermore, I strongly object to the disregarding of tjhe concerns of Traditional Owners, and the fact that over 1000 cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the dam project.
I accept the Department's submissions disclaimer and declaration
I have not made a reportable political donation in the past two years.
Yours Sincerely

To whom it may concern,
I object to the raising of the dam wall on many levels
Drowning of intact forest supporting endangered flora and fauna
drowning of aboriginal cultural sites
increased risk of residential flooding especially if proposed subdivisions go ahead
this is a knee jerk and bad idea, media grab at its worst
Please do not let this proposal go ahead

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I would like to add to my previous submission of objection to the raising of Warragamba Dam Wall.
As alternatives to raising the Dam Wall by 14 metres, I would like to refer the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment to the paper by Associate Professor J. Pittock from the Australian National University, “Managing flood risk in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley” September 2018.
He recommends four approaches to managing the flood risk of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Flood Plain.
1. Provide alternative flood storage in Warragamba Dam by lowering the full storage level by 12 meters and implementing current and new desalination plants in the region to supply Sydney with water. Warragamba Dam was built to supply Sydney with 80% of its drinking water, not as a flood mitigation dam.
2. Stop putting people in harm’s way. At present, the NSW Government plans to double the population of the floodplain. Pittock mentions that more stringent planning controls are used overseas where a 1:500 year flood level is used in the USA, a 1:1,250 year flood level is used in the Netherlands, whereas here in NSW development is permitted immediately above the 1:100 year flood level. The 1867 flood in this Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley, when no dam existed, was higher than the most recent damaging floods.
3. Improve the Evacuation routes. “Previous government investigations into flood mitigation strategies have found that effective evacuation is the only measure that guarantees a reduced risk to life in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley (Infrastructure NSW 2017)”, states Ass. Professor Pittock. A report and evacuation analysis prepared for Infrastructure NSW (M. Stewart 2012c) found that significant evacuation upgrades of roads were needed in the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley. Routes surrounding Bligh Park, Richmond, and Penrith needed to be significantly improved. “New flood plain development proposals in the northwest” of “Sydney, including Penrith Lakes would put significant pressure on evacuation routes into the future.” Living in the Blue Mountains with only 2 -3 possible evacuation routes in case of a severe bushfire concerns us greatly each year.
4. Relocate most floodplain residents. Relocation has already happened in Queensland after the severe floods in Grantham. In other countries relocation of people in floodplains already happens in Europe, the USA and China. Overseas, the vacated land is being restored for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, recreation, and nature conservation. At present, there are 5,000 houses under the 1:100 year flood level and 7,000 more under the 1:500 year flood level on the Hawkesbury- Nepean floodplain. Damage bills can reach tens of millions of dollars from floods. Costs of relocating in 2017, an estimate by NSW Infrastructure was $3.3 billion. For example, the insurance costs of the resulting flood from the Wivenhoe Dam on the Brisbane River in 2011 was $2.55 billion.
Ass. Professor Pittock provides a map, “Figure 2. Proposed Development areas overlaid with flood extend on western Sydney Floodplains (Infrastructure NSW, Molino Stewart 2012a),” which is vital to this discussion. One can easily see the areas affected by a 1:100 year flood and then superimposed on this are areas where development is being considered. These include the North-west Growth Centre, and many other areas either being discussed by developers or discussed publicly. Some of these include areas in Bligh Park, Richmond, Penrith Lakes, ADI Site, North Penrith Urban release, Riverstone West. This map is from 2017 so some of these areas may already have been developed in the past five years.

The whole question of flood mitigation on the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain needs a multi-pronged approach. Raising the Dam wall will not be enough to stop floodwaters from affecting many many people as time goes on if the present trajectory is maintained of allowing another 134,000 people on the flood plain to live and work.

Whilst the attraction of the metropolis of Sydney is enticing for people wanting to reside nearby, the absolute requirement to be close to the capital city is starting to decline as people work from home as a more normal thing. Could encouragement of decentralisation be an option, rather than crowding people into the Sydney Basin, which is already affected by poor air quality and increasing temperatures? If the proposed airport at Badgery’s Creek continues the pollution and noise pollution will increase, affecting the health of the population in this geographical basin of trapped circulating air currents.
Thank you again for the opportunity to raise this objection to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL – RESPONSE TO THE PREFERRED INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT
I object to the Preferred Infrastructure Report that calls for the raising of the Warragamba dam wall, for the following reasons:
1. The premise of the report is that raising the wall will protect communities downstream in the Hawkesbury-Nepean valley from flooding. When there are many other waterways that will continue to inundate the area it would not matter how high the wall was built it would not avoid repeated flooding events in the valley.
2. There are alternatives that would provide effective flood mitigation. These have been proposed by professionals with expertise and urgently need to be implemented.
3. The alternative strategies include a group of projects that would not devastate endangered species and wild and beautiful environments.
4. Previous consultations have provided the NSW government with a huge amount of expert knowledge including from the Traditional Owners of the land and waters. It appears from reading the PIR all of this knowledge and expertise has been dismissed in favour of a project that would fail in its objectives and do permanent untold environmental damage.
5. The Blue Mountains Heritage area is of huge environmental and economic significance both nationally and internationally. This project should not be allowed because of the damage it would cause to the World Heritage Area.
6. This project would have severe impacts on the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater as well as the last remaining Sydney emus. There are also endangered plant species that would be affected, including box woodlands and species of eucalypts and the wildlife they support.
7. There is an intergenerational equity issue here – the NSW government decision-makers of today must not rob future generations of environments that are necessary to sustain them into a future that is already at risk from climate change.
Please abandon this project and listen to Traditional Owners and the very many professional experts who have pointed out the irreparable damage it would do. Please instead ensure that effective projects are put in place to mitigate flood risks that do not involve environmental devastation.
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.
I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for over 30 years and raised my family here. We all bush walk regularly in all areas of the National Park.
The natural beauty of the wonderful wilderness on my doorstep is astounding. To be able to explore this park, both the well- trodden tracks and the more remote areas, is a true privilege. It is no wonder that this amazing part of Australia is well known all over the world and attracts many thousands of visitors each year .
The tourism sector in the Blue Mountains and surrounding council area depends heavily on the upkeep and conservation of the Blue Mountains National Park. Local business relies on tourism.
If the Warragamba Dam wall is raised we stand to lose a national park area of 4700 ha.
World heritage forest would be submerged (approximately 1000 ha)
Wilderness would be destroyed potentially (1800 ha)
Higher water levels from floods would submerge vegetation, leading to large areas of sedimentation, with exotic weeds invading, and drowned trees.
Higher water levels would denude wild rivers like the Kowmung and leave them permanently damaged.
There are rare endangered plant communities such as the nationally threatened Camden white gum which would not survive flooding.
Massive fires recently destroyed the habitat of the regent honeyeater- a threatened bird species that is the rarest in NSW. Further destruction of habitat by flooding again will only exacerbate the risk potentially leading to extinction.
The higher water levels will further destroy the world famous scenery in the southern blue mountains area.
Indigenous heritage of the Gundungurran nation and their creation story would be lost forever. This loss of cultural history also extends to early settler European heritage.
World renowned classic bushwalking areas and historic campsites would be drowned and access further restricted.
The proposed $700 million budget could instead be spent on appropriate flood mitigation measures and careful management of housing developments in the basin downstream.
Flooding results from many tributaries feeding into the Nepean Hawkesbury catchment not just the Warragamba river. This means the raising of the dam wall is unlikely to have the desired effect.
Insurance companies are already highlighting the dangers and risks of this project .
The Warragamba dam wall was commenced in 1948 and completed in 1970. It was built to provide water storage. It was never intended nor engineered to be a flood mitigation dam. The structure was built using design and engineering available 73 years ago. To build on top of this old structure would be dangerous.
A catastrophic failure in this structure could result in thousands of deaths and major loss of residential property, and farmland.
Our international reputation for care of our natural environment has already been marred by our neglect of this ancient and precious land. Much of the damage occurred before we understood the implications of destroying our forest and led to a record of extinctions amongst the worst in the world.
We now know better.
The project to raise the dam wall would be viewed around the world as yet another example of the inability of the Australian government to protect our beautiful country.
I urge decision makers to look at
other solutions.


Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I object to the raising of the wall of the Warragamba Dam because:
• The Warragamba Dam was built to supply water to Sydney, not for flood mitigation.
• Already poor decisions have been made about land development in the areas affected by flooding from the Nepean and Hawkesbury Rivers.
• The effects of Climate Change mean that previous statistics which lead to statements about 1 in 5, 1 in 10, and 1 in 100 flooding events cannot be used as a justification for decisions made.
There are concerns expressed that the raising of the dam wall will have effects on the quality of Sydney’s water.
Previous statistics which lead to statements about 1 in 5, 1 in 10, and 1 in 100 flooding events cannot be used as a justification for decisions made.
Raising the wall of the Warragamba Dam as a solution does not take into account the water coming down the Nepean River that enters below the Warragamba Dam.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The environmental impacts of the proposal to raise the dam wall are totally unacceptable.
As a resident of Bathurst,west of the Blue Mountains,we are acutely aware of the importance of the World Heritage Area to our region to our region, our State, and our planet.
The cultural and environmental impacts will be enormous, destroying World Heritage significance.
I have personally walked and explored all of the Kowmung River,often with my four children, and numerous others. It is a life changing experience to immerse oneself in true wilderness. To be able to do this within a few hours of Sydney,a world city, is priceless.
The proposed Warragamba dam raising must not proceed.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern:
I strongly oppose the raising to the Warragamba Dam. I am shocked to hear that deep flaws in plans for this project are being ignored, in spite of 2500 submissions in 2021 which outlined the inherent problems in the idea.
This project appears to be driven by politics, to appear to be doing something “by hell or high water” [Dominic Perrottet], rather than by common sense and respect for the environment. The premier makes his lack of understanding of the environment clear with his reference “to put people before plants”. Some of the concerns are as follows:
• The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is an internationally recognised. treasure. The NSW Government intention is to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
• The damage to natural and cultural values caused by raising the wall of the dam would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
• 1,300 hectares within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would be inundated by the Dam project. This would severely impact on rivers, trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat, which would all be at risk – much of this recognised as having outstanding value in World Heritage Listings.
• The lack of proper environmental assessments and modelling by SMEC Engineering is in keeping with their bad reputation for abusing indigenous rights. [They have been barred from the World Bank.]
• The failure to properly consider other more suitable options for flood risk mitigations.
• Ignoring concerns of Sydney Water and NSW Health about damage to water quality.
So many times we have ignored protection of the environment at the expense of “progress”. We have ignored the rights of indigenous people. We have failed to understand the value of caring for the environment, including caring for habitat of the thousands of creatures living in the areas such as The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Raising the Warragamba Dam wall would be another nail in the coffin of international respect, another example of desecration of the treasures of the planet, another huge loss for the millions of people who are drawn to living and visiting such an amazing area.
Yours sincerely,