Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern

Please find attached a submission in response to the DPE Submissions Report and Preferred Infrastructure Report that were produced as a follow up to the the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam for flood mitigation purposes.

Yours faithfully
William Dixon

I object to the Raising of Warragamba Dam Wall. The project will not prevent the current downstream flooding in the Hawkesbury –Nepean Valley. In particular the Nepean River but the Grose, Colo and McDonald Rivers are all major contributors to the flooding downstream of the Warragamba System.
Past Governments have ensured the safety of the regions biodiversity by creating the Blue Mountains National Park and our World Heritage Area. That status alone should ensure the security of the area or so we thought.
I was involved from the start of the Dam Wall Raising process when 'The WDR Team' did a presentation to a meeting I attended. They had no idea of the extent the added wall height would make and the inundation to sensitive land areas upstream. The 'temporary inundation' would generally have a vast impact on areas of the Warragamba Catchment.
Moving forward the EIS has been tragic to say the least, with no European Heritage assessment done and a very poor assessment of the Indigenous Heritage. These sites were sacrificed significantly for the creation of the Catchment Area of Warragamba Dam in the 1950's, the remainder needs to be protected and this project represents the largest destruction of conservation lands ever proposed.
Burragorang Valley is an important part of the First Nations Gundungurra Creation Story and there are records and many previous reports on European Heritage. Sydney Water (and other local historical societies) have extensive archival records on the properties resumed for the inundation in the 1950's which should have been referenced and yet those heritage assessments were incomplete or totally lacking in the case of the European heritage.
Society today is conscious of the protection of our wildlife, flora and fauna and their habitats and the security and protection of this. Our Government is letting us down. We have so much to lose if the Raising of Warragamba Dam is allowed to proceed.
The scope of the EIS process has not been comprehensive and seems flawed. With so many glaring inadequacies at this early stage of the project it does not instill confidence for a positive outcome for anyone if the project continues.

See attachments below.

The higher dam wall will not be enough to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain in a major rain event and flood.
It won’t solve the problem of badly-located housing developments and the limited warning the Bureau of Meteorology can provide, coupled with insufficient road capacity to evacuate all residents impacted within this warning time.
Raising the Warragamba Dam does not remove the risk. The Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain is fed by rainfall from four catchments, with the Warragamba Dam collecting run-off from just one.
Once full the retained water will act like a pavement, meaning even greater run off will be experienced that will end up in the flood plain making the floods worse.
A UN report assessing the state of the Blue Mountains' World Heritage listing has raised concerns about the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam. Up to 4,700 hectares of the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Parks and 65 kilometres of wilderness streams would be inundated by the 14-metre dam wall raising.
The resulting inundations of the Kowmung and surrounding rivers will decimate the ecological integrity of this wilderness and threaten the survival of 48 endangered plant and animal species and potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural values.
Inundation of previously non-inundated areas may harm water quality through increased level of sediment and organic material.
Overall nothing recommends raising this wall unless you are wanting to build more housing and developments in the (with the wall raised) now even more flood prone, more seriously at flood risk properties down river from this dam and the other rivers flowing into the flooding areas.
This is not 8n the interests of people living in the flood plane, it risks animals and bird habitats, damages Aboriginal heritage and damages the world heritage listed Blue Mountains Pational Park

As the population of the city of Sydney grows, it is inevitable that the city's water supply will need to increase to meet demand. Raising the dam wall will help to meet this demand.
Equally as important as water supply is flood mitigation. Four one hundred year floods in two years have devastated individuals and businesses in the Hawkesbury area. The raising of the dam wall cannot just be about Sydney water supply, but must also be about flood mitigation.
Management of water levels needs to reflect the duality of the dams role. To raise the dam wall and have the dam at capacity will not achieve this.
I support this project for the dual purpose of securing water supply and flood mitigation.

see attached.

I am totally opposed to the raising of the dam wall. It will not stop the flooding of properties down stream that are inappropriately located on the floodplain because a lot of the flood water actually comes from streams below the dam wall, notably the Nepean River, Grose River, Colo River, Bedford Creek and Glenbrook Creek. This was highlighted with recent the dramatic flood events. The EIS stated that the inundation of upstream wilderness areas will be temporary and so will have little impact on environmental values. But in a rapidly changing climate it is naive to believe that water once stored behind the higher dam will be quickly released as it is predicted that the extremes of drought will quickly follow floods ever more frequently. And as the flood water lingers a long time on the flood plain there will be political pressure the hold back releases as long as possible. The upstream riverine environment will soon come to look like the barren wasteland around the existing dam surface below the high water level. This is visible from many vantage points around the Blue Mountains and a further 14-17 metre high scar will dramatically impact on the UNESCO World Heritage Area, further diminishing it's wilderness values. These are already under numerous existing threats from unprecedented bush fires, invasive species, mining and other pollution and the likely impact from aircraft flight paths associated with the Western Sydney Airport. Following the recent announcement from Sydney Water that only a small fraction of the dam full water storage was safe to process to safe drinking quality because of the detritus carried down by the flood, a senior Government Minister was prompted to say that this was another reason to raise the wall height, a comment totally at odds with the idea that the wall was to stop down stream flooding and that the water would not be held over time. The Government says that the lives of up to 40000 residents by 2040 will be at risk if the wall is not raised. Who is it that will allow those residents to build on the flood plain? There should be no further residential development below the 1-100 year flood level and even 1-1000 year flood levels should be considered as we are now in unprecedented times. The upstream impact of the raised water level for even short periods will have a major impact on endangered species, coating vegetation with sediment, destroying food sources for endangered fauna, introducing weed species and even encouraging further encroachment of feral species like brumbies and cattle. The negative impacts are partially acknowledged but largely dismissed as minor or unknown in the EIS. Australia has the World's worst record of extinctions of many species, so any threat is critical. Many species have been put under threat from by the huge bush fires that devastated the Blue Mountains. The EIS has not taken this changed impact in it's very limited surveying.Finally there is the negative impacts on the cultural values in the upstream area. There has been a very cursory assessment of the prehistorical Indigenous sites thoughout the Burragorang Valley. And there is no consideration made of the impact on the Wild River values of the Kowmung River and the rugged Wild Dog Mountains, access to these areas will be further eroded as the Sydney Water Exclusion Zone is expanded and the water level increased by 14-17 meters extending kilometers back up stream. These areas have been the stamping ground for generations of bushwalkers. Even the Mittagong to Katoomba long distance walking track will be threatened as it will be cut at the Jooriland Crossing on the Wollondilly River and at the Mount Cookem Crossing on the Cox's River. This is part of our history that cannot be destroyed so that developers can add more houses on the Hawkesbury flood plain

I firmly oppose the raising of the dam wall because 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. A ‘like for like value compensation of a world heritage international site’ would be impossible to meet and extremely costly to fund. 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 possible 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 considered.

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 my complete submission.

Ruby Hardie

Please give more time to adequately research better options and allow for a wider discussion and consultation. The EIS report does not address important issues that will impact the ecology, biodiversity, water quality and cultural Aboriginal sites. Despite great expense of taxpayers' money, it will not solve the problem of the flooding of the flood plain, as scientists state that nearly 50% of the flood water comes from other sources.

I am against raising the Warragamba Dam wall for the reasons outlined in the attached document.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback about this project. My comments and evaluation arriving at my view on the project are all included in the document attached.

Objection based on non-repsonsiveness of RtS to previous objections, and to the deficiencies in the PIR

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned about the state of our wildife (extinction crisis) and please read Tanya Plibersek's comments on the current EPA and EIS assessments. She has saisd they are fundamentally flawed and just not working/broken. There are threanted species affected by the raising of the wall and also Aboriginal Cultural heritage sites that may be involved.
There are other alternative which should be investigatsed.


Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
We oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.
We are totally dissapointed in the NSW Liberal Government's attitude toward dismissing the enormous environmental impacts of this project, the traditionnal owners and community concerns that have been raised, the concerns of Sydney Water and Health NSW and the the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.
We live on the Hawkesbury River and the claims that this project will assist against future flooding is a pure cover up for the proposed future develoment on the floodplain.
The NSW Liberal Government continues to show its distain of the Hawkesbury community in so many ways and this project has all the hallmarks of a repetition of the Windsor Bridge debacle that was blatently pushed through against the community wishes and heritage concerns, the only diffrence being this project has environmental concerns.
Please do not allow this destructive project to proceed there have been other alternative options put forward that need to be considered against this proposal, finacially and environmentally.
I accept the Department's submissions disclaimer and declaration
I have not made a reportable political donation in the past two years.

To whom it may concern,
Our environment is our priority. This dam plan seeks to destroy wildlife and wilderness.
I live and work in the area and I, like most people I know in the area, feel that going ahead with the dam will do more damage than good.
I respect parties and people who are able to take on the feedback/views/cares of people in an area, and do the best for them and their environment.
I have the upmost respect for people and representatives who can admit falibilty. Who can change their mind, and listen to the people in the area.
We know what we want. We want to protect our environment. That is what is important to us.

Please join us in thinking of the health of our environment as a priority. Not the dam.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising the wall of Warragamba Dam because it will destroy a large proportion of the World heritage area and First Nation's sacred sites.
In the face of opposition of the Blue Mountains and Wollondilly Councils the State government is pushing its agenda by using this report to dismiss previous community concerns. This report justifies the destruction of our World Heritage and Traditional Owners are once again ignored.Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall have been dimissed.
My connection to this issue is that I live in the Blue Mountains and want this great wilderness area to be protected for future generations.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Please do not raise the Warragamaba Dam wall in the name of reducing flooding, as there are better alternatives that do not inundate critical habitat for threatened species and preserves Aboriginal Cultural heritage.
I have grave concerns including:
- the recent NSW Government's "Preferred infrastructure report" and "Response to Submissions" ignore the advice of UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area to enable this project to proceed.
- the reports dismiss the concern raised by both WaterNSW and Sydney Water that the extra water held by the dam risks Sydney's drinking water supply. The updated report merely dismisses these concerns without first assessing the ability for Sydney’s water filtration plants to treat water of a lower quality that is expected when extra water will be held behind higher dam walls. Ensuring Sydney's major source of drinking water is safe now and in the future surely is in line with putting people first. This project is not only an environmental disaster but is not fit to protect people.
In fact, I'm very concerned that the dam raising is being driven by developer interests on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain. The NSW Government has stated in its principle document advocating the dam proposal that it plans to allow an additional 134,000 people to reside on western Sydney floodplains after the dam is raised. How is this plan consistent with reducing flood damage to people and homes?
Better alternatives are available and will address the flooding risk beyond the catchment of the Warragamaba Dam. For example, increasing the carbon content in soils of the Sydney catchment by just 1% would increase the holding capacity of the land five-fold with an estimated cost of this option being less than 1% of the $2 billion capital cost of the dam wall proposal. Further, raising the dam wall is only estimated to increase capacity by 10% and with 45% of floodwaters into the Hawksbury-Nepean Valley coming after the dam wall, the Warragamba Dam Raising Project does not stand up scientifically or economically. As a community we need a responsible government that investigates alternative options yet no alternative options were assessed in the environmental impact statement. We need multiple options that are provides comprehensive mitigation of flood risk.
For the numerous reasons outlined above, this Project needs to be reconsidered. Thank you for preserving the Blue Mountains, a place that holds special meaning to me from my experience of walking its tracks and seeing its unique natural and cultural heritage.
Yours sincerely,