Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I would like to make it knon that i oppose the dam and believe that it will only exacibate the issues trying to be resolved.
Consideration around residential development on flood plains is more relevant. Also by raising the dam we loose the very enevironment that supports the reduction of carbon dioxide within the air, let alone the capacity that it has to support a rewilding connection to the natural world for physical and mental health. The Blue Mountains and this region also will likely lose its World Heritage listing which opens the door for who knows what other developments let alone the species destruction and ecological destruction of signficant woodlands etc.
I understand that the report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded. It is believed that over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
Please reconsider the raising of the Warragamba Dam
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my profound concern about the NSW Government plan to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam.
In particular I find the prospect of the loss of World Heritage status and the reduction in the size of the Blue Mountains National Park objectionable.
i have been a walker and visitor to the Blue Mountains since early childhood and the prospect of flooding parts of this unique environment I find unconscionable.
Yours sincerely,

I write to strongly oppose the proposal by the NSW Government on raising the wall of Warragamba Dam, and object to the way that the Preferred Infrastructure Report has failed to address the concerns that I raised in my previous submission for the environment impact statement.
My 2 major concerns expressed in my previous submission were the loss of land protected in the World Heritage Area, and the transparently obvious fact that the dam wall proposal fails to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean plain area from future catastrophic floods. Neither of these issues has been adequately addressed in the PIR. The potential loss of 5700 hectares of National Park, including 1300 hectares of World Heritage Area, would represent the largest destruction of protected national estate in the nation's history, and would be enormously detrimental to our international reputation as a nation committed to preserving our natural heritage.
To compound this proposed act of destruction, the Government's solution to the problem of major flooding is clearly inadequate. As has been pointed out by a number of experts, half of the water flowing into the Nepean-Hawkesbury does not come through the Warragamba River. A major rainfall event over the upper Nepean catchment area, in the context of full catchment levels as now, would still cause major flooding of the plain downstream, an event not prevented by raising the dam wall. Similar problems could occur through localised extreme rainfall events in the Grose and Colo catchments. Thus, the extreme environmental damage caused by raising the dam wall might still not prevent major flooding. Other alternatives to preventing such floods have been dismissed in the PIR.
I have walked in the Kanangra-Boyd wilderness area for over 50 years, and visited the Kowmung River, the last wilderness river in NSW, at least 100 times. I had hoped that my grandsons would have had the opportunity to do the same during their lives. This area should remain as our legacy for future generations to appreciate. Once destroyed, we can never get it back.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am totally, strongly opposed to raising the Dam Warragamba Dam Wall as proposed by the NSW Government. To do so makes no rational sense whatsoever.
My Personal Experience
My training is in the area of environmental science (BSc Geology, Physical Geography, Physics, Ba Politics). I became a petroleum geologist then a high school teacher teaching science (junior), environmental science and physics at HSc level. I taught for 16 years at Hawkesbury High School and have lived at Kurrajong, close to the Hawkesbury River for 27 Years. I have experienced several floods and take a considerable interest in the local environment and catchment of the local major rivers, ie including the Blue Mountains. As recreation, I bush walk, mountain bike ride in the Blue Mountains and visit the area often, eg Bilpin just for a coffee, via motorcycle and car trips. I have also lived for 5 years in the Springwood area. I am passionate about retaining the values that make this area special and keeping it this way. Raising the dam wall in that respect is a disaster. As a result, I became engaged in this issue in the mid 1990’s eg writing published articles against raising the Dam wall in the Hawkesbury Gazette, which was widely read then, as it had not yet been undermined by the internet.
During the 1990’s this battle had been fought and won in favour of the mitigation we have, including among other things, building a spillway to protect the wall from overtopping by flood water. That was at a cost of$90 million (budgeted) as opposed to raising the Wall $390 million (budgeted). I read the EIS prepared for the Greiner, Feh LNP NSW Governments and the later one for the following Carr NSW ALP Government. As a result, I found, that to raise the dam wall was total vandalism for no benefit and the emplacement of the spillway and mitigation that was done was sensible. We have already decided raising the dam wall is a dam very silly idea, supported by relevant experts at the time.
Fast forward, we are re fighting the same battle after the mitigation and spillway have been emplaced. Why? The answer, I think is because the symbiotic relationship between the NSW Liberal/National Parties and the developers requires that conditions are created to allow developers to prosper in return the LNP gets political donations. There are many developers inside the LNP. These interests are thus to prosper, even at the expense of people’s lives (those placed in harms way as a result of the proposal) and a tax paid subsidy of huge proportions, close to $2 billion, to make development legal on the flood. The cost in the event of a large flood, huge amounts of damage would ensue upstream and downstream of the dam, as per the Carr EIS, eg oyster farms and bass spawning severely affected and death of the river due to warming and widening of the water course, the viability of remnant Cumberland Plain ecosystem undermined, these do not seem to be of concern in the current EIS but will still occur. Add to this the damage upstream, as per the Carr EIS and the criticisms of the current EIS, re raising the dam wall, as below.
As part of the values to be defended is the idea that green spaces in Western Sydney are becoming precious and a fundamental part of our mental wellbeing. Development arising from raising the dam wall will undermine this. The land to be developed is prime agricultural land close to Sydney, strategically it is dumb to build on it. Wilderness is a value enshrined in law after the legal battles to stop sand mining on the NSW coast. The NSW government’s action in removing affected areas upstream of the dam from the World Heritage Area, so that it can be flooded, shows utter contempt for this (civilised/smart) concept and takes us back to the reckless, idiotic days of the 1950s and 60s in regard to understanding of and respect for environmental values.

What This EIS Dismisses:
• The report has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and in some cases expert submissions were not even addressed
• The report has announced NSW Government’s intentions to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
• The 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.
• This report ignores the findings and recommendations of the EIS prepared for the Carr Government that led to raising the dam wall being rejected in the mid-1990s, in favour of alternatives, aa. Why is now, different???
This EIS Downplays:
• The resulting destruction of World Heritage and National Parks.
• 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.
• That these ecosystems cannot survive the impact of repeated floods. E.g. from memory, only two flood events are required and key species in the ecosystem will be destroyed and the ecosystem will not ever recover as a result.
Respect For Traditional Owners:
• The report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
• The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both 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.
Alternatives:
• 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. I have heard this from respected people experts in this area on ABC’s Radio National. I have never heard a single one of these speakers, speak in favour of raising the dam wall.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS. Nor Any assessment of alternatives and does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
• 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.
• People will be placed in harms way if the wall is raised. The push to do this has come from the developers (and initially the insurance industry) and is designed to benefit them. Lives WILL BE LOST as a result of development facilitated on the flood plain. In other countries such as, The Netherlands, people are being removed from lands subject to current 1 in 500 year flood events, to allow for climate change. Under current Australian convention, developers will build down to the resulting lowered, 1 in 100 year flood events. These events do and will become 1 in less than 100 year events and even the current restrictions by law will become inadequate. More people and property will have been placed in harms way if the wall is raised. Stuart Ayres LNP MP for the Penrith area is on public record that more development will be allowed on the flood plain if the dam wall is raised, guaranteeing this disastrous outcome.
Summary:
All my instincts, wealth of relevant experience aa, (64 years old), (professional and personal interest) say the proposal to raise dam wall should be rejected and the EIS is fundamentally flawed. Evidence to support this is, the NSW Government’s lack of good faith in presenting its case to raise the wall by placing the project as a vital infrastructure project. This implies the government knows this proposal will not stand up to scrutiny, as this removes the requirement for scrutiny or a right to meaningful objection from the public, that brings about action.
The EIS is flawed in that it, dismisses community concerns, the negative impacts downstream and upstream on the ecosystem, ignores the values of, wilderness (enshrined in law as requiring protection), sustainability, mental health, health, water quality, traditional land owner values. It does not consider alternatives that may stack up better when all is weighed up, e.g. cost benefit analysis of say removing people, permanently, currently in harm’s way of a flood. The EIS ignores the FACT that massive losses, to property and LIVES, will occur if the dam wall is raised as more people and property will be harm’s way when a massive flood event occurs. The EIS ignores the fact that the government will be expected to pick up the bill, ie the public, when this event occurs or allow innocent people to suffer. The developers will have walked away with their ill-gotten huge gains. Thank you very much!!!!
Conclusion:

The EIS for the proposed raising of the dam wall is still inadequate despite being the result of the precursor being rejected as inadequate. It shows the same lack of good faith on behalf of the NSW Government and the vested interests that want this wall raised, at tax vast payers’ expense, a public subsidy to developers and cost to tho

Warragamba Dam Raising - Submission Against

I am opposed to the dam raising for the following reasons:
The dam will not stop flooding since about 45% of floodwaters come from undammed rivers, and floods will continue to increase due to climate change.
Alternatives have not been adequately considered. Factors ignored include the benefits of more parklands and farmlands on floodplains if new houses were not built or old ones relocated.
Environmental costs have not been adequately evaluated.
The impact on the Blue Mountains world heritage site has not been adequately assessed.
Suitable offsets for damaged sites either do not exist or have not been found.
There has been inadequate use of local rainwater in Sydney, which would enable some of Warragamba’s storage capacity to be replaced by flood mitigation capacity.

Judy Kelly

To whom it may concern,
I was once involved in a decision on whether to go for an increased spillway or raise the sam wall. The state took the decision to increase the spillway. Not the gates on the dam wall that lets water trickle down. Nobody has ever seen the new one in action. Anyway, there is no need for safety's sake to raise the wall. The only reasons would be to rob the river; to irrigate loads more land; and to "Develop" more land by greedy so-n-sos. Thereby Increasing a population to create greenhouse gases.
PLEASE don't raise the wall and UNNECESSARLY wipe out more species.
Yours sincerely,

I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons:
The status of the World Heritage Blue Mts National Park would be seriously under threat as 4,700 hectares would be inundated, putting at risk 48 already threatened species, such as the Camden White Gum and the Regent Honeyeater. The National Park is one of the most protected natural landscapes in Australia.
Added to this would be the inundation of 65kms of wild river streams upstream from the Dam Wall.
Significant Indigenous Cultural sites will be inundated, when Australians are already taking a stand to give First Nations people a voice in Parliament. The local Indigenous communities have been given no say in the destruction of their heritage, it’s undemocratic!
Most concerning is that there’s no evidence that the Project will keep people safe from future flooding, when we know that in recent floods the Dam was at just 60% capacity, that much of the flooding comes from the Valleys feeding into the Hawkesbury below the Dam Wall . Whilst flood risk is an important issue facing western Sydney, raising the Dam Wall is an inadequate solution, and is being driven by developers in the Hawkesbury district. In the end it’s a plan that will put lives at risk as floodplain development is opened up
Of major concern, and not being discussed is the safety of the Dam Wall Project and to date we haven’t seen any substantial engineering evidence that tells us that raising the Wall can be safely done. Questions are being asked about the consequences if the Wall failed in the future, when it’s known that the current site is in a geologically unstable area. Objective experts have described the project as ‘dubious at best’ considering how much water flows into the Hawkesbury from other sources.
There are other more immediate strategies that can be taken to protect the communities along the Hawkesbury, namely:
Stop putting people in harms way
Improve evacuation Routes and Flood Forecasting
Relocate the most flood prone residents
Lower the full storage level by 12 m, feeing up billions of liters of airspace for flood control and, where needed operate desalination plants and water recycling
As is said in recent UTS research, this would be a cheaper option than raising the Dam Wall
Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission
Gay deBurgh Thew

To whom it may concern,
WARRAGAMBA DAM SUBMISSION
I am a bushwalker from the Blue Mountains who loves the outdoors. I strongly object to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam. It has now been clearly identified that the NSW Government has ridden roughshod over due process to get the result they want. In fact some of their actions arguably amount to corruption and should be investigated by ICAC. It is a disgrace.
I object for the following reasons:
• There are many sensible alternatives to raising the dam wall, like building better and more flood evacuation roads, reducing the full supply level of the dam and simply reducing floodplain housing development.
• The Insurance Council of Australia has indicated the money would be better spent purchasing properties on the floodplains that should never have been built there.
• The effectiveness of the higher wall would be limited, and floods could still occur.
• Yet this government has a plan to house another 134,000 new residents on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain over the next 30 years. Utterly ridiculous, this smacks of pandering to developers. Perhaps something else for ICAC to investigate.
• There is no modelling in the assessment of the economic benefits. Former NSW SES Deputy Commissioner and flood expert has stated the project is flawed and should not go ahead.
• Important areas of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, legislatively-protected habitat for many unique and endangered plants and animals such as the regent honeyeater, koalas and emus, as well as numerous indigenous sacred sites, would be This is a high cost for the vague possibility of making houses on the floodplains somewhat safer, particularly when other measures could be taken. Damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
• The assessment undermines the legislation that is the foundation of environmental protection in NSW. This sets a dangerous precedent for Australia’s World Heritage and National Park protections.
• The wild Kowmung River would be inundated.
• Hardly any time was spent looking for koalas in the assessment and only one day assessing impacts to aquatic life including the platypus. One day was spent assessing Indigenous cultural heritage, barely a quarter of the impact area. This is not rigorous enough.
• Documents show the NSW government tried to avoid paying nearly $3 billion for environmental damage expected to occur as part of its plan to raise the dam wall. The NSW Environment Minister had stated in 2019 the bill for the environmental compensation would be so big, the project would not go ahead. The NSW Government has inappropriately artificially redefined the “impact area” (by using a 1 in 20 year flood rather than 1 in 100 years) to reduce its size by more than 50% to save on compensation. Disgraceful.
• The Environment Minister also said in 2019 that the economics of raising the dam wall would make the project unviable. It is a waste of taxpayers money.
• Water NSW fought with the independent ecologist originally writing the environmental assessment, pushing her to weaken her findings. That ecologist eventually quit and was replaced by someone who, until that very week, was working for Water NSW on the dam-raising project. This is appalling misconduct that should be investigated.
• Lack of rigorous evidence: Federal officials took issue with a draft environmental impact statement that claimed important ecosystems would not be negatively impacted — a claim they said had "no supporting evidence". Of course the ecosystems would be affected.
• These Commonwealth experts also criticised the NSW analysis for not including the effects of the 2019-2020 bushfires, which could have made plants and animals impacted by the dam project more vulnerable or more important. No post-bushfire fields surveys for threatened species have been undertaken.
• They also noted there was no evidence for an assertion that some habitat would not be "permanently" lost. It would most certainly be lost.
• Legal advisors in the NSW government recommended the removal of any claims which can't be scientifically verified. Such shortcomings should not be covered up and it is inappropriate for lawyers to suggest this.
• SMEC Engineering which undertook the environmental and cultural assessments has a very poor record working with indigenous people. It has been banned from working on World Bank projects overseas.
Yours sincerely,

see attached

Please see attachment

To whom it may concern,
The proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall does not make sense to me. The Nepean River is not dammed, nor is the Grose. The confluence of those two rivers is at Yarramundi and most of the catostrophic flooding is downstream from there.
The benefits are debatable but the destruction is not. A raised dam wall will flood large areas of Blue Mountains National Park, diminishing and even threatening its status as a World Heritage Area. There specific impacts to Aboriginal cultural sites as well as critically endangered species such as regent honeyeater.
If there are concerns about flooding of existing properties, which were knowingly build in flood zones then the option of property buy back should be explored. This was recommended by the Insurance Council of Australia as as reported in the SMH in October 2021.
I believe that the plan to raise the dam wall under the guise of protecting property (and live) is really a plan to further develop flood plain in western Sydney. This plan is foolish and greedy and I strongly object.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I totally oppose the proposal to raise the Waragamba dam wall. If it is raised there is a high chance that people and businesses in the current flood zone will gain a false sense of security. This is of concern because raising the wall will not stop flooding in the Hawksbury/Nepean flood zones. Raising the wall could also lead to more development in the flood zones and thereby incurr a huge cost to the state and individuals when the next flood occurs.
Close to 50% of floods waters in the Hawkesbury/Nepean originates below the dam wall, and with the effects of climate change leading to rapidly increasing severity of flood events this will mean huge amounts of water below the dam even if the dam is not spilling.
If the government is so confident that flooding will be stopped it should cover the costs of any future flood damage for all people and businesses in the flood zone.
There seem to be many deficiencies in the EIS, e.g.:
1.Where is the comparative costings for diferent options for protecting people and businesse currently in the flood zone or the cost of removing them from the zone?
2.What is the cost to the state and the country of the greenhouse gases which will be foregone when the trees are killed by the extra flooding above the dam?
3. This current report and the original EIS appear to ignore concerns of individuals, government agencies, and UNESCO. Why have all not been specifically and adequatately addressed?
4. There appears to be no thorough assessment of alternative to raising the dam wall for protection of people a property in the flood zone. Why not? How do you know that are not much cheaper options which will not cause the extra distruction above the dam as proposed?

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. I spend a lot of my free time exploring the Blue Mountains and I fear that these changes will disturb the critically endangered wildlife and their habitats.
NSW Government intends to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
I am extremely concerned about Sydney Waters announcement stating that the water quality will be affected.
Traditional Owners are being ignored! Over 1541 identified cultural heritage siteswould be inundated by the Dam proposal
I along with many others, value our wildlife! To hear that the habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population will be affected also, is appalling.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am a researcher and practitioner in design and environmental humanities at UTS. For the past two years my work has focussed on the Regent Honeyeater and its likely spiral towards extinction due to habitat loss caused by land clearing, and now the possible raising of the Warragamba dam wall.
As has been reported, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report was not done with appropriate consultation with Gundungurra community members, making the possible dam wall raising a part of the ongoing colonial project of dispossession and displacement. It is 2022: as Australians we know to be and act better than this.
Not raising the dam wall may not save the Regent Honeyeater. Raising the dam well will most certainly hasten its extinction, and that legacy will forever live in the dam and in the names of the people raising the dam wall. The late anthropologist Deborah Bird Rose used the term 'deathwork' to describe a lot of human activity in Australia, and it applies here as well. Raising the dam wall is deathwork. We have to be and act better than this. Raising the dam wall would accomplish little good, but doing so would cause untold destruction for generations. I ask you to consider our collective legacy. Thank you.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam due to the following reasons:
It will negatively impact the local wildlife which is already under threat from the impact of climate change - fires and floods.
It will flood important indigenous sites, which is not consistent with a reconciliatory approach to first Nations peoples.
Climate change will increase the frequency of flooding in the area. The proposed level of the dam wall will not be sufficiently high to prevent further flooding of residents houses.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the construction of the raising of Warragamba dam wall. The recent report cited to justify the construction dismisses community concerns and those of the Aboriginal community. The destruction of World Heritage is unjustifies and places listing in danger. Traditional owners are again being ignored and their ever dwindling cultural heritage destroyed. There are alternatives for flood mitigation that are not being seriously considered. Raising the wall will encourage more unsustainable building on the floodplain , benefiting land developers. It will not prevent flooding as other rivers contribute to the problem; these rivers are not controlled by the Warragamba dam at all.
Yours sincerely,

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) and Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI) Response to Submissions Report (SR) and Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) on the Warrangamba Dam Wall Raising. Please find enclosed on behalf of our Institute, AILA's submission opposed to the Wall Raising.

Best regards,
Tessa Faucheur, Chapter Manager AILA NSW

To whom it may concern,
I wish to lodge my objections to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

It concerns me that a recent report called the “Preferred Infrastructure Report” has ignored much of the expert advice and all of the 2,500 submissions made by community and government agency’s and in some cases experts concerns were not even addressed.

There are many reasons why this project should not proceed but one of the first reasons is the impact on the world heritage listing and disregard for the traditional owners and their sacred sites that will be impacted.
Unique habitats recognised universally under the “world Heritage Listing”as having outstanding diversity of flora and fauna are threatened, including endangered species. To eliminate and damage these areas for absolutely MINIMAL gain is repulsive.
I have personal ties to the Hawkesbury region and resided in the area for 15years of my life,I know the area well, and wish to remind all who read this that in Feb 2020 when the Hawkesbury river flooded the dam was at less than 60% capacity, much of the water flow that impacts the Hawkesbury region is overland, and while having the dam at 90+ capacity exacerbates the situation when the landscape is saturated, lowering the level of water in the dam would provide as much protection without the billions in cost that could be used to rehouse people on the floodplain to higher ground .
Security risks
As we have seen due to the recent floods, having only 1 water source for the growing population of Sydney is not planning. If something was to happen to that supply, and it became contaminated it leaves the whole population at risk, it is better to rethink where another source of storage and recycling could happen, it would be far better to invest in innovative and new sources and recycling plants and other areas than to be tied to just raising the structure, which could face integrity issues if the pressure and force of water becomes to great.
Who will be responsible if the engineering goes pear shaped and the whole of the western Sydney floodplain becomes affected, who will pay? Who’s decision is it going to be to approve and who has the insurance to cover every person affected in western sydney, you can’t just outsource this and claim it’s not your problem.
No alternative options were assessed in the EIS and any assessment of alternatives doesn’t take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
The insurance council of Australia has warned against it,
The SES are concerned about future ramifications.

Finally two parties will benefit greatly if this project was to go ahead, Kerry Stokes who has large land holdings on the floodplain purchased from Boral and the only way the company can make a profit going forward is for a project like this to go ahead so flood ratings and zones can change and development can alleviate his financial position, and Celestino who seem to have done a deal with Sydney Water and the aerotropolis development and a 5billion dollar recycled water and sewerage hub, it feels like people do not have a say in this city and the developers are the only ones with power to pull strings over the common good.
This is more important than that , to put any developers or potential development schemes ahead of the interests of the First Nations sacred sites and world UNESCO listing is honestly an outrage.
DO NOT PROCEED with this ridiculous and pointless project that will save no one.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam, and urge you to stop this disastrous proposal.
The most recent report has basically ignored the vast community opposition to this project. It is ignoring the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, and the serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects on Sydney's drinking water quality.
The environmental impacts of this project are absolutely unacceptable. With the state of global biodiversity in crisis, we need to be doing everything we can to protect biodiversity, particularly such important areas as the Kowmung River and Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Having a declared 'Wild River' so close to Sydney is an amazing thing, and we have a responsibility to protect it.
Furthermore, the report is disregarding the concerns of Traditional Owners, with the fact that over 1542 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal. To forge ahead with this knowledge, and flawed assessment processes, is not only disrespectful, but violent.
I have a strong connection personally to the Kowmung River. As a teenager, my father took me and many other young people bushwalking there on multiple occasions. It was a profound experience, to walk such beautiful and wild country, to camp by a river that was so clean we could swim with our eyes and mouths open, and drink the water without purifying. Flooding these areas will change them irrevocably, and that would be a huge loss to the world.
I am also opposed to the dam raising professionally. As an environmental scientist, with several years experience in freshwater ecology and Water Sensitive Urban Design, I know that there are alternative options to the Warragamba Dam Wall that would protect communities. It would also be more cost effective than raising the wall. Why were alternative options not assessed in the EIS?
As outlined above, the reasons to stop this proposal are mounting further and further. Even the NSW Government's scientific committee has spoken against the dam raising. It is time to listen to the science, stop this proposal, and protect our World Heritage areas for perpetuity.
Yours sincerely,