Warragamba Dam Raising

We 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.

We 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 our detailed response as our complete submission.
Janice Haviland

To whom it may concern,
I competely and utterly oppose any proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
This proposal seems to have completely ignored all the concerns raised in the thousands of previous submissions from the community and from experts in this field.
Concerns have been raised about the NSW government ignoring the UNESCO World Heritage advice. Changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park to avoid its obligations for protection and valid concerns from Sydney Water about further water inundation of the local evironment affecting drinking water quality.
Inundating the Blue Mountains World Heritage site will damage the protected Kowmung river, threaten many protected plant and animal species including the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and the last significant emu population in the Sydney basin.
Furthermore, all the concerns raised by our indigenous Australians about the destruction of traditional sites within the threatened zone have been completely ignored.
The specious reason we are provided for justifying this project is "it will save lives".
With the resources, equipment and sytems available nowadays, a 10 year, multi billion dollar project to raise the wall will have no effect on "lives lost. How many lives have been lost in the recent floods in this area??
What happens also when the dam is at capacity again? Back to square one.
What the NSW government also fails to mention is that floods will still occur regardless of whether the dam is raised. Alot of the flooding in the Hawkesbury is localised due to the area being on a floodplain. Flooding in this area, many of them much worse that the recent ones occurred prior to the dam even being built in 1960.
This planet is facing the greatest existential crisis it has ever faced with climate change. The last thing we should be doing is destroying protected natural areas and exacerbating the problem. The very problem that is causing these floods in the first place. What is the point of declaring areas national parks and world heritage status if thse protections can just be wiped away.
The government needs to seriously consider all the concerns raised by experts, and the community about this proposal and consider the alternatives that have been proposed.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to oppose the raising of Warragamba dam wall.
The alternatives to raising Warragamba wall have not been considered in the EIS process.
45% of floodwaters downstream of Warragamba inflow from other catchments, and wouldn't be effected by a higher dam wall.
The destruction of 5 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 is not acceptable.
The Traditional Owners of that Country have raised concerns abou the destruction of cultural heritage sites, which have been ignored.
I regularly go bushwalking in the Blue Mountains, and do not want to see any more precious remaining natural bushland and cultural sites destroyed. I grew up on a floodplain in Northern NSW, and understand how scary living on a floodplain is. There should not be housing developments on natural floodplains. Any sense of security the NSW government want to create for developments on floodplains by raising the dam wall are not real.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
As a long time bushwalker I have always greatly valued the Kowung River and and its valley. One of the classic hard bushwalking and wilderness areas around Sydney.

This would be irrevocably lost if the Warragamba dam wall is raised. Once it has ben inundated, even if the water level falls, the trees and vegettation are dead and covered in mud. The beautiful river flats and beaches would disappear, Not to mention the animals and any aboriginal sites along the river.

Once they have been inundated once ther is no return.

Bushwalkers and conservationist have fought for many decades to protect these areas. It would be more than a great pity if they are lost forever on our watch. How will I explain that to mychildren and future grandchildren?

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
As I understand it, there are a number of cheaper and more effective options to this Dam which were explained to both Wendy Tuckerman and Nathaniel Smith at the meeting in Berrima on November 30th. As I uunderstand it, an increase the carbon in the soil by just 1% (there are a variety of techniques to do this) increases the potential of the 90,000square km catchment 5 times and for a mere $100m as opposed to spending $2bn on increasing dam wall by 12m and thereby increasing holding capacity by a measly 10% . Pretty convincing?
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
We are opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam for the following reasons.
• Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will inundate and destroy the habitat of endangered animal species.
• Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will inundate and destroy over 1500 traditional owners’ cultural heritage sites.
• Raising the dam wall will inundate the Kowmung River, a pristine wild river protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974).
• Raising the dam wall will inundate unique eucalypt species and threatened ecological communities recognised as having outstanding value under the area’s World Heritage listing.
• Raising the dam wall will potentially create a greater risk to existing property downstream due to increased spillway flows during wet periods.
• Raising the dam wall will give the green light to opportunistic developers to further increase building construction in the floodplain.
The Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) which has been issued to address the inadequacies of the original EIS fails to address community concerns, namely
• The PIR ignores the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee in relation to the effects of raising the dam on the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
• The PIR ignores the majority of concerns raised in thousands of community submissions in relation to the original EIS.
• The PIR dismisses the concerns of NSW Health and Sydney Water in relation to the effects on drinking water quality
• The PIR does not address the available alternative options to raising the dam wall
As lifelong residents of North Western Sydney who have visited and enjoyed the Blue Mountains National Park on many occasions, we urge the NSW Government to reconsider raising of the Warragamba Dam wall and instead to deploy resources to:
• Provide funding for flood mitigation measures and relocation offers to communities already affected by the extreme flood events resulting from Climate Change.
• Address the root cause of Climate Change by allocation of funding for development of renewable energy projects.
• Provide incentives for adoption of electric vehicles and funding for charging infrastructure in NSW.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
For 10 years I lived in the Blue Mountains and, for the last 2 years, I have lived in Lithgow where even more of the beautiful terrain adjoining the World Heritage Area has been revealed.
I have long been opposed to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam. Every time there is a flooding emergency, this issue is again raised and the argument "people before the environment" is raised. It seems alternatives to raising the dam wall are never really taken seriously, although there are many reasons why they should.
Many areas, as we know well, in Western Sydney have been developed for residental purposes on flood plains, yet we still move forward in the most aggressive manner in this direction. Many developers have profited handsomely from these schemes and continue to do so.
While critically endangered species, cultural sites, and powerful natural phenomena, e.g. Kowmung River declared as a "wild river" are not spoken for. It is fact that there is a lack of credible government reporting on these issues.
As only 45% of flood waters come from Warragamba Dam, credible alternatives (and there are) need to be thoroughly examined and not dismissed. This decision cannot be reversed.
The now Premier, Dom Perrottet, declared his objection to raising the dam wall while Treasurer, but now is putting "people before plants" which dismissed the seriousness of this important decision. It has become political. This matter deserves "innovation" not "government speak".

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am totally opposed to the raising of the Dam Wall at Waragamba. Certainly it is important to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding when it rains heavily but there are other ways to do this by better management, for example by reducing the usual level of the dam and if necessary introducing alternative methods of producing drinking water in this catchment, possibly by improved water treatment.
If the wall is built we as a community will have caused the destruction of World Heritage areas. the traditional Owners will lose even more of their sacred places and lands.
Please listen to the voices of the large numbers in the Community which are against raising the wall, for strong and well researched reasons.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. Raising the wall would cause significant environmental damage and flooding of cultural heritage sites identified by traditional owners.
As someone who enjoys bushwalking in the Blue Mountains, I firmly believe we should be preserving the area’s natural wonders and cultural sites for future generations.
I urge the NSW Government to find alternatives to raising the wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the Warragamba Dam Raising Project. I also oppose greed, corruption and unessesary damage to the environment for the sake of short term-profit that benefits a few, and socialises the costs. Raising the dam wall won't mitigate flooding on the Western Sydney flooplain and will certainly cause unessary damage to the Blue Mountains' world heritage national park.
Ecosystems take thousands of years to establish and form balanced, healthy relationships for all the organisms living in them. These systems are also what sustains life for humans. Ecosystems also take hundreds of years to re-balance one they're damaged. But I think governments and their departments are already aware of these facts, they just choose not to see them.
I could go on here and write a whole list of facts why I'm against rasing the dam wall, but I think all these points would be ignored because the government and vested interests are addicted to economic growth at any cost. They don't care if members of the community or Traditional Owners oppose the project to preserve our standard of living. They don't care if something as uniquley Australian as the koala goes extinct. They don't care that Australia is becoming a worse nation to live than it was 20 years ago. They only care about incessantly growing our population to promote "growth", and lining their own pockets with the proceeds. All the rest of us get is damge to the things we care about, a decline in our living standards, and an Australia that's more brutal and competitive than it used to be.
I might be wrong, but I suspect the real reason the government and interest groups want to raise the dam wall is for money. And that's why we're losing trust in our governments all over the world.
I lived in the Blue Mountains many years ago. Most recently I spent four years living in the Hawkesbury area. I was there when the "unfloodable" new Windsor bridge was built. It's an area of immense natural beauty. Some of us really love and value that kind of thing.
Those of us that love the natural environment in Australia are getting pretty weary of having our preferences ignored, while people who value money over all else are catered to. We don't owe them that.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
Instead, a feasibility study must be carried out to determine the cost and efficacy of alternative options such as regenerating soils in the catchment to increase their carbon content, and therefore their water retention capacity. The feasibility study should consider protection of existing floodplain communities.
The Preferred Infrastructure Report (‘the report’) is deficient and cannot be relied upon because it dismisses important issues such as the project’s probable deleterious effects on Sydney's drinking water quality. This is unacceptable.
Equally as unacceptable is the stated intention of the NSW Government to ignore advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area. Further, the report attempts to downplay the 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 project.
Shockingly, 1,541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the project. The report has flagrantly disregarded Traditional Owners’ concerns and does not even include important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
It is important to note that regardless of the height of the dam wall, it will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream because 45 percent of floodwater originates from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
As a keen bushwalker this issue has direct relevance to me. In addition, I feel strongly that my grandchildren and all future generations have the right to enjoy the same natural and cultural wonders that are under threat from this project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to make a submission on the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
I oppose the raising of the dam wall.
I believe that this is a flawed proposal which fails to take into account the complexity of water movements in flood from the greater Blue Mountains area.
It fails to give appropriate value to the natural and cultural heritage values of the area proposed for flooding,
it does not adequately address the vital potential effects on drinking water.
Shamefully, it irresponsibly ignores the importance of the designated World Heritage Area that NSW has been privileged to be entrusted to care for.
The report doe not adequately address the destruction of the natural environment which will result from the raising of the wall. Rivers, valuable ecological communities, unique tree species, plants and endangered fauna will all be affected.
The loss of cultural heritage is equally wanton destruction. Sacred sites. ancient evidence of earlier Aboriginal life should be meticulously documented and respected. Current documentation appears to be woefully inadequate and should be not only be improved but respected.
Alternative options, of course, exist, they should be considered along with the option to raise the dam wall. We have the skills to work them out so that existing floodplain communities can be protected. Further development of the down water floodplain below the Dam is simply irresponsible, it should not be the driver for this ill advised proposal.
Given that up to 45% of floodwaters flow from sources other than those feeding Warragamba Dam, this proposal is clearly an inadequate one indicating that alternative solutions are essential.
I do not believe that the current proposal has adequately taken into account the submissions already made to the previous EIS, including those made by specialists/scientists involved in highly relevant components of the EIS.
I submit that the NSW Government should not re-draw the World Heritage boundary just to suit its development desires.
We have an absolute responsibility to properly protect the National Park and the World Heritage Area due to the value of the natural and cultural heritage protected.
It is simply irresponsible to change boundaries to suit political will.
It is simply irresponsible to flood a landscape of such high value.
I am a resident within the Great Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. I value this landscape with awe and a deep sense of responsibility to ensure its protection. It is utterly unacceptable to me that political intent would result in the proposal of an intervention that would cause such significant destruction.
I unreservedly object to this proposal and urge the government to explore and adopt an alternative solution.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I remain appalled at the propsect of this project to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall going ahead. In the aftermath of the devastation of millions of hectares of native forests throughout south east australia in 2019-20 bushfires, it is incomprehensible that this government sees it appropriate to wreak yet more devastation on not just any old native forest, but a World Heritage Area, including the pristine Kowmung River - a declared wild river.
At a time when the national conversation is about the recognition of First Nations people in the Constitution, the Premiers remark about this project being about "people before plants" has dismissed the concerns of the Traditional Owners - a people with a deeper and longer relationship with the area than the residents of new suburbs built on a riverine floodplain. With over 1500 cultural heritage sites identified in the proposed inundation area, this project flies in the face of true reconciliation and respect for our First Nations people.
As a child, this is the area where my love for nature and the environment was first sparked and then nurtured. NSW and Australia have been fortunate to have had this area set aside by people with vision, under an International Agreement, for future generations to enjoy. It will be a travesty of the greatest order if the Warragamba Dam Wall is raised and this pristine area and its long cultural heritage is lost forever. And it will be a permanent stain on the legacy of those in power that allow it to happen.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall.
I believe the EIS process was flawed by not including any assessment of alternative options for flood mitigation. The raising of the dam wall is one option that will have significant environmental impact on the Blue Mountains National Park's flora and fauna, not to mention cultural and social impacts. Why was there no inclusion of other feasible options?
In the past I have been bush walking in the Blue Mountains NP numerous times and feel sadenned to think the natural beauty. flora and fauna will be threatened and changed for ever by the proposed raising of the dam wall.
I work as a Civil engineer and specialise in Water Sensitive Urban Design and I know that flood mitigation can be achieved through a multi prong opproach, rather than adopting a massive and costly infrastructure project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I hereby lodge my submission to the Warragamba Dam Raising Project. I would also like to state my opposition to this project.
Firstly, I am concerned about this report in that it has all but dismissed the genuine concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions lodged to the initial EIS in 2021. The New South Wales Government is ignoring the wishes of the New South Wales people. In some cases, expert submissions that had been lodged were not even addressed.
Further, and deeply troubling, is that the report announced the New South Wales Government’s intention to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Greater Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area. I am astonished by and angry at the government for this wilful handling of our precious Australian heritage and ecosystems.
Sydney Water and Health NSW has serious concerns about the effects the dam project will have on Sydney's drinking water quality. These concerns have just been dismissed in the report. A thorough investigation must be undertaken to assess this situation.
Each time I sit at Leura Lookout and look out at the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area I am once again astonished by it’s silence and incredible beauty. Each time I promise to keep this ecosystem intact and safe so my children and grandchildren can experience it. I cannot let it been destroyed and I will not consent to the New South Wales government destroying it either.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
For the only planet we have.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the construction of the Warragamba Dam.

The reason for my opposition is as follows:

• The NSW Government has chosen to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park;

• The report, based on the EIS conducted raises issues about the effects the project would have on Sydney’s drinking water quality. These issues have been blatantly ignored by the NSW Government;

• The report dismisses the comments raised by 2500 concerned community and Government agency submissions including expert testimonials. It is very concerning when the Government ignores the advice from its own Departments and /or fails to address their comments and recommendations.

• The report downplays the destruction of a World Heritage area. 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 traditional users of the area and their cultural sites have not been adequately consulted. 1541 identified cultural heritage sites will be destroyed if the dame proceeds.

• The report does not address alternative options to the construction of the Dam.

I do not reside in NSW, however, I have often spent time in the Blue Mountains region.

Wilderness areas, and especially those in already protected areas must not be encroached upon by development. The very nature of such areas is that they remain as they are.

Successive Governments continue to chip away at wilderness areas supposedly for the ‘good of the people’ often when the people they represent DO NOT want elected representatives to continue with a project. The Warragamba Dam is one such project and the project should NOT proceed.

The loss of habitat for critically endangered species, the loss of cultural sites, and the removal of a large area from a heritage listed region is too much to pay.

Our forefathers protected this area for a reason, and the present Government should have the frame of mind to understand the reasons why this was done.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. It is a total waste of public money, will do little to help flooding in the Hawkesbury area and will adversely impact the World Heritage Listing of the Blue Mountains as well as Indigenous Sacred Sites.
It would appear that previous expert advice, community concerns and Traditional Owners objections have all been ignored in this latest proposal.
There are cheaper and more effective options available that would protect existing floodplain communities. These alternatives were not taken into account in the EIS. No new floodplain development should occur.
The glaring fact is that 45% of floodwaters come from areas outside the upstream Dam catchment, so this destruction of the World Heritage Area will still not prevent flooding from occuring in the Hawkesbury and Nepean Valley downstream.
This proposal should be rejected as being economically unviable, environmentally destructive, discriminatory against First Nations values and is a totally ridiculous idea that will do nothing to alleviate the floods.



Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. I live and have lived a long time in the Lower Blue Mountains and have walked extensively in the area and surrounding wilderness. I do not want any more of the World Heritage area flooded destroying aboriginal cultural heritage sites and biodiversity. On average, 50% 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. There are alternative options - flood mitigation in the surrounds of areas that are flooded where houses should not have been built but they have. No more should be built. Greater use of the desalination pant and water tanks for grey water is better than spending billions than raising the dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Having grown up in the Blue Mountains, walked, riden and lived on the edge of the national park in both the lower and upper mountains I implore you to refrain from pushing ahead with raising the dam wall.
It has been made clear that the larger community who live, work, research, and recreate in this unique environment are not supportive of raising the dam.
The lack of consideration of expert submissions, ignoring the advice of the UNESSCO World Heritage Committee, by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area and the concerns of Sydney Water and Health NSW is to say the least distressing.
Impacts on these large areas that have been protected by the significant efforts of concerned and well informed individuals is very concerning.
Minimising the impact on the 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, 5,700 hectares of National Parks being inundated by the dam poject is to put it simply shameful.
The potection of wild spaces, diversity, threatened ecological communities and species is what we, the greater community expect from those in governance.
Threats to over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites and insufficient assessments which disregard important information and concerns of Traditional Owners AGAIN is simply not acceptable.
Alternative options to raising the dam wall need to be adequately considered from both short and long term perspectives.
A combined approach of multiple options to protect existing floodplain communities, adequately considering the floodwaters that derive from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment and long term cost effectiveness need to be fully explored.
I write this submission with memories of many family and friends who are no longer with us in mind. Individuals who worked in and moved through these sacred spaces with good intention and grace.
For the sake of future generations as a collective, surely we have enough forsight to protect our World Heritage.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am making this submission to outline my fierce opposition to the NSW Government's proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
I oppose this plan for several reasons including:
1. The report, Preferred Infrastructure Report', ignores the concerns of the Traditional Owners. Over 1541 identified sacred sites would be destroyed if the dam wall is raised. This is patently at odds with the Premier's statement 'people not plants'. NSW and Australia has destoyed far too many cultural sites and this must stop now.
2. Community concerns and government agencies including Health and Sydney Water, have significant concerns about the effects that this proposed project would have on Sydney's drinking water. Our drinking water is too impoprtant to risk. Put people before plants!
3. Flora and Fauna loss. 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. The Komung River is a declared wild river, and protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Also in this area slated to be flooded is unique eucalyptus species diversity which has an Outstanding Universal Value under the area's World Heritage listing including the Camden White Gum. There are a number of Threatened Ecological Communites as well as critically endangered species including the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's last Emu population.
There are alternatives to this project, which have Not been taken into account in this report. These alternatives are also more cost effective.These alternatives include, not allowing any more housing on the flodd plain, lowering the full storage level of Warragamba Dam by 12 metres would free 795 billion litres of airspace for flood control, improve evacuation infrastructure upgrades, and relocate major flood prone residents.
My final point is that 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.



Yours sincerely,