Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
PIR Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising project - December 2022
Submission by Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society Inc. (OFF)

Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society Inc. (OFF) strongly objects to this proposal. The grounds for our opposition are listed below, after background information on our Society.

Our organisation has been active in protecting environmental values for more than 65 years. Our Mission Statement is Working to protect, conserve and enhance the natural environment locally and globally since 1955. We currently have around 300 members, many with qualifications in the natural sciences and in engineering.
Our monthly meetings attract an audience of 40-50 and are addressed by professionals with expertise in environmental fields. In May 2019 a member and former OEH natural heritage officer who has been undertaking faunal surveys in the Warragamba Catchment Area since 1997, spoke to our members on the significant biodiversity values of the Temperate Grassy Box Woodlands of the Burragorang Valley. At the same meeting the video “Give a Dam: flooding the Blue Mountains” was screened, illustrating the cultural heritage values of the area for the Gundungurra People, and the wilderness scenery and wild rivers and streams, particularly the Kowmung and Kedumba, so valued by bushwalkers.
Our members have also seen at firsthand the Burragorang valley within the Warragamba Catchment Area. We have participated in many authorised bi-annual bird surveys for the Birdlife Australia National Regent Honeyeater (Critically Endangered) and Swift Parrot (Endangered) programs. We have seen the great diversity of fauna that inhabits the area, including a suite of threatened bird species as well as Platypuses, Emus, Dingos, Common Wombats, White-bellied Sea-eagles, Eastern Grey Kangaroos and Red-necked Wallabies. Most sightings were in the valley floors, often in, or close to, shallow natural waterways – the very ecosystems that would be periodically inundated and so irrevocably damaged if the dam wall were raised.
In September 2019 OFF made a submission to the Legislative Council Select Committee on the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall, in opposition to raising it.
In December 2021 OFF made a submission in response to the exhibited Warragamba Dam Raising Project SSI-8441 also opposing it.
We now find that OFF was one of the 2,500 community and government agency submissions which raised concerns with the initial EIS that the report has all but dismissed, and in some cases has not even addressed the expert submissions.
This report has announced the NSW Government’s intention to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
In addition, 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.
The UNESCO World Heritage Committee considers raising the Warragamba Dam wall to be the most significant threat to Australia’s World Heritage in decades. The report has attempted to downplay the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks.
Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society objects to the proposal because:
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; and
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater (mentioned in OFF introduction above) and Sydney’s last Emu population.
The report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, by 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 to raising the dam wall have been dismissed. 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. They include lowering the full supply level of the existing dam, improved evacuation routes, and moving people off flood-prone land, including consideration of buybacks.
• Assessment of alternatives should 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.

Conclusion
For the NSW Government to plough ahead with this ill-conceived project is to condemn many of its citizens to physical danger and financial loss, to deprive Indigenous people of their connection to significant cultural sites, and to further endanger many already threatened plants and animals.

Mr Kim Wagstaff
President
Oatley Flora and Fauna Conservation Society Inc.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall as it would be a waste of taxpayers money on a project that will not prevent flooding downstream of the Hawkesbury-Nepean due to 45% of floodwaters flowing into the Nepean River from other creeks and rivers and the fact that there are alternatives to raising the wall that will not destroy the beautiful Kowmung River and flora and fauna within our World Heritage Listed National Park, which is very important for human existence. I also greatly oppose the dam raising because it would inundate sacred aboriginal sites, which is extremely disrespectful towards the traditional owners. I live in the lower Blue Mountains and am out bushwalking on a weekly basis taking in the beauty of the area and would hate to see this World Heritage Listed National Park destroyed when there are other alternatives to raising the dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to OBJECT to the Warragamba Dam Raising Project.
The Greater Blue Mountains Heritage Area is a world renown area of immense natural beauty, magnificent landforms and unique ecology, including pristine wild rivers and threatened plants and wildlife.
The critically endangered Regent Honeyeater is one such example of a bird species that is reliant on this area for its survival. One of Australia's few remaining wild rivers, the Kowmung, would be lost forever.
The innundation that would result from raising the walls of Warragamba Dam would have an enormous, irreversible destructive impact on this exquisite natural country. The proposal ignores the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee that such innundation would undermine the heritage listing of the Greater Blue Mountains Area.
5,700 hectares of National Parks with outstanding universal value flooded and destroyed for good. We cannot afford these losses.
The traditional custodians of this land have not been adequately consulted and face the loss of over 1500 cultural heritage sites. Have not our First Nations Peoples already lost enough?
Here is one of the absurdities of this proposal. The floodplain communities will NOT be protected from future flooding events by raising this dam's walls. Almost half of the floodwaters that affect these communities flow from areas outside the Warragamba Dam Catchment. The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley WILL still flood.
Alternative options, other than raising the dam wall, for these floodplain communities have not been sincerely and thoroughly explored and assessed. It is not a matter of 'either/or', of keeping this 5,700 hectares of unique natural Greater Blue Mountains area, at the cost of our floodplains communities. In this technologically clever time it is possible to help the floodplain communities, without brutalising irreplacable natural environments.
I am familiar with the Blue Mountains National Parks and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, having regularly visited and walked in this beautiful country over many years. I have firsthand experience of the flooding hardships that affect the Hawkesbury River area as I keep horses at St.Albans, the historical small town on the Macdonald River (a tributary of the Hawkesbury) and recently bought a property at Mogo Creek (which flows into the Macdonald River) in Yengo National Park, a part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
I am now part of the Hawkesbury-Nepean community. A floodplains community. I may in future be affected by the flooding along the Macdonald and Hawkesbury rivers. I understand the hardships experienced by this community. Yet I do not accept that raising the walls of the Warragamba Dam and the sacrifice of unique areas of natural wilderness is a solution. We can work smarter.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall, as it does not prevent flood risks from the catchment, and the raising of the dam wall and higher water level will permanently obliterate large areas of river side vegetation and biodiversity along Sydney's last wild river the Kowmung.
This UNESCO World Heritage area needs to have high levels of protection, and this dam would cause irreversible and major damage to World Heritage areas and to Traditional Aboriginal cultural heritage. The World Heritage boundary areas of the Blue Mountains must not be reduced. We need to preserve and protect remaining biodiversity, and ensure there are microrefugia for wildlife and wildlife corridors.
There are serious concerns presented by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects of the dam project on water quality for Sydney. This has major ramifications and has not been dealt with in this EIS report.
The report inadequately addresses concerns from many experts, including conservationists and those trying to protect endangered species, that are threatened by extinction due to habitat loss and landclearing. The Camden White gum, Grassy Box Woodland species, Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's remaining emu population would be devestated by the raising of the dam wall.
The proposal ignores the rights and concerns of Traditional Aboriginal Owners of this land, and does not address the damage to sacred sites that would be flooded if the dam wall is raised. Over 1500 cultural heritage sites would be permanently flooded. The Gundungarra community members and Elders have not had their views meaningfully heard or respected.
There are alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam Wall that would protect floodplain communities. Alternative options were not canvassed or assessed in the EIS. This is poor government management of taxpayer funds. All options need to be considered for such a major infrastructure build - this is public money - for a public project. Almost 50% of floodwaters come from areas outside the Warragamba catchment and so other strategies would need to be put in place, as no matter how high the dam wall is built other water will flow into floodplain communities.
The period of consultation was inadequate and short, to have meaningful consultation the public needs to have a range of options presented and fully costed. I think that the period of exhibition and consultation needs to be well extended for at least a few months, to allow for proper assessment and responses to a major development.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly stand against the raising of the dam wall. My resons for this goes as follows: it does not prevent flood risks from the catchment, and the raising of the dam wall and higher water level will permanently obliterate large areas of river side vegetation and biodiversity along Sydney's last wild river the Kowmung.
This UNESCO World Heritage area needs to have high levels of protection, and this dam would cause irreversible and major damage to World Heritage areas and to Traditional Aboriginal cultural heritage. The World Heritage boundary areas of the Blue Mountains must not be reduced. We need to preserve and protect remaining biodiversity, and ensure there are microrefugia for wildlife and wildlife corridors.
There are serious concerns presented by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects of the dam project on water quality for Sydney. This has major ramifications and has not been dealt with in this EIS report.
The report inadequately addresses concerns from many experts, including conservationists and those trying to protect endangered species, that are threatened by extinction due to habitat loss and landclearing. The Camden White gum, Grassy Box Woodland species, Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's remaining emu population would be devestated by the raising of the dam wall.
The proposal ignores the rights and concerns of Traditional Aboriginal Owners of this land, and does not address the damage to sacred sites that would be flooded if the dam wall is raised. Over 1500 cultural heritage sites would be permanently flooded. The Gundungarra community members and Elders have not had their views meaningfully heard or respected.
There are alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam Wall that would protect floodplain communities. Alternative options were not canvassed or assessed in the EIS. This is poor government management of taxpayer funds. All options need to be considered for such a major infrastructure build - this is public money - for a public project. Almost 50% of floodwaters come from areas outside the Warragamba catchment and so other strategies would need to be put in place, as no matter how high the dam wall is built other water will flow into floodplain communities.
The period of consultation was inadequate and short, to have meaningful consultation the public needs to have a range of options presented and fully costed. I think that the period of exhibition and consultation needs to be well extended for at least a few months, to allow for proper assessment and responses to a major development.
Given climate change it is more important than ever to protect habitat and refuges for wildlife.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am absolutely appalled that you can make the destruction of wilderness areas a state significant project in your foolhardy plan to raise the dam wall at Warragamba.
You are only embarking on this ridiculous project to satsify developers in the flood plain who want to put more houses in the path of rising floodwaters.
You are ignoring the fact the area is World Heritage. To contemplate changing the boundaries of the World Heritage area is ridiculous.
You have not taken into consideration any of the traditional owners concerns of the area being decimated.
Much [45%] of the floodwaters come from outside of the Warragamba Dam. So raising the wall will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
You must explore seriously alternative options and not proceed with this foolish scheme.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing again to voice my objection to the planned raising of the Warragamba dam wall. The main reasons for my objection are a) impact on the World Heritage landscape and waterscape of the area earmarked to be inundated, and b) the short-sighted nature of the project's stated goal, i.e. to prevent flooding downstream of the dam on the Dyarubbin (Hawkesbury-Nepean) floodplain.
Not only is the area classified UNESCO World Heritage, Gundungurra People as the Traditional Owners of the area have not been adequately consulted on the proposed destruction of their Country and raised strong objections which have simply been noted and not accounted for (see pp. 32-39 of the Niche report).
Regardless of the wall's height, flooding of Windsor and the surrounding area is all but guaranteed in a major rainfall event due to the "Sackville Bathtub" created by narrow, steep gorges which fill and spread water quickly regardless of what is happening upstream at Warragamba (Hubble & Power, 2021). These communities will continue to experience flooding, particularly as we move into a flood-dominated cycle. Building ever more housing on such floodplains is unconscionable, and the raising of the wall is unlikely to protect future housing on floodplains.
For these reasons, the NSW government should not go ahead with the proposed raising of the dam wall.
Hubble, T. C. T., & Power, H. E. The March 2021 Flood on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River: An opportunity to revisit the Flood-Dominated-Regime–Drought-Dominated-Regime Model.
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
I am writing again to voice my objection to the planned raising of the Warragamba dam wall. The main reasons for my objection are a) impact on the World Heritage landscape and waterscape of the area earmarked to be inundated, and b) the short-sighted nature of the project's stated goal, i.e. to prevent flooding downstream of the dam on the Dyarubbin (Hawkesbury-Nepean) floodplain.
Not only is the area classified UNESCO World Heritage, Gundungurra People as the Traditional Owners of the area have not been adequately consulted on the proposed destruction of their Country and raised strong objections which have simply been noted and not accounted for (see pp. 32-39 of the Niche report).
Regardless of the wall's height, flooding of Windsor and the surrounding area is all but guaranteed in a major rainfall event due to the "Sackville Bathtub" created by narrow, steep gorges which fill and spread water quickly regardless of what is happening upstream at Warragamba (Hubble & Power, 2021). These communities will continue to experience flooding, particularly as we move into a flood-dominated cycle. Building ever more housing on such floodplains is unconscionable, and the raising of the wall is unlikely to protect future housing on floodplains. For these reasons, the NSW government should not go ahead with the proposed raising of the dam wall.
Hubble, T. C. T., & Power, H. E. The March 2021 Flood on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River: An opportunity to revisit the Flood-Dominated-Regime–Drought-Dominated-Regime Model.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the raising the Warragamba dam wall because the project will damage a lot of sensitive bush-land close to where I live. The dam rising project has been troubled with many things that has not been adequately handled by the government or minister appointed. The EIS was quite inadequate quietly underplaying or outright disregarding damage done to sensitive wild life as well as damage to many sensitive aboriginal sites that would be inundated with water should the dam wall be raised. It would threaten the world heritage status of the Blue Mountains national park. Further issues I've observed is that almost every institution that is not politically controlled has objected to raising the wall. The cost is unclear. Every step of the way the government has tried to silence criticism and sweeping problems under the rug. IF raising the dam wall is important as it is claimed (I must note that even this is questioned by many non-political organisations) the project can withstand intense scrutiny and still be deemed valuable. Raising the dam wall has not fared well when scrutinised by engineering groups, environmental groups and there are even independent reporting that it would do poorly at mitigating the flood risk, as such I must again voice my very strong objection to this project and it must be halted.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
As a resident of the Blue Mountains and a colleague of many living in the Hawkesbury/Nepean area, I am disappointed with the latest report and oppose the planned raising of the wall of the Warragamba Dam for the following reasons.
* The report has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and not addressed all the expert submissions.
* The report announces the NSW Governments intention to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and change the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
* Effects on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
* The report has attempted to downplay the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks. Areas that would be inundated include the protected “Wild River” Kowmung River, areas of unique eucalyptus species such as the Camden White Gum, a number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland, and habitat for endangered and critically endangered species such as the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
* Concerns of Traditional Owners have been disregarded.
* There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS.
* 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.
In the light of the above issues I hope you will reconsider the planned raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Firstly I need to state my complete opposition to the notion of further raising the height of the Warragamba Dam Wall, given that as we have seen over the last year and more in NSW, and is still happening right now, dams, however large, emphatically do not mitigate flood risk in the era of climate-change-caused extreme rainfall events in Australia.

I am a 75-year-old male who grew up in the Eastern Suburbs of Sydney in the 1950s and 1960s, but has lived in the ACT for more nearly 50 years. I and my family have spent many wonderful times experiencing the unique country west and east of the Nepean-Hawkesbury River system, and including the Blue Mountains. In my opinion, the idea of raising the height of the Warragamba Dam wall, thereby desecrating what remains of this wonderful landscape in the cause of expanding along a floodplain an already too large Sydney, amounts to insanity.

This recently released revised EIS, is called a Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR), and was required to address the inadequacies of the original EIS. However, the new report has all but dismissed the 2,500 submissions opposing the dam project, siding instead with the interests of western Sydney's floodplain developers to proceed with the project. It is this PIR my submission opposes.

At a general level, the report on community feedback has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and has not even addressed some expert submissions. Worse still, the PIR signals the 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. Sydney Water and Health NSWs’ concerns about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have also been dismissed.

Now for a more detailed critique of the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall and the PIR’

The report has attempted to downplay. If not ignore, 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 Dam project. Areas affected include:
• The Kowmung River, already declared a ‘Wild River’, and 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, for example the Camden White Gum.
• A number of threatened ecological communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland.
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species such as the critically endangered Regent honeyeater and Sydney’s last emu population.

Yet again, Traditional Owners have been ignored:
• The PIR has disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners by 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.

Ignoring First Nations people’s concerns can no longer be tolerated in a region so close to Australia’s premier city, given its terrible colonial history over more than 230 years.

The alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall are summarily dismissed in the PIR:
• The existing floodplain communities could be protected using an approach combining a range of options, and this stands out as the most cost-effective means of flood mitigation.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS, so the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation are ignored.
• 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.

I will end this submission by repeating that the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall is a desperate, and deeply flawed attempt by the NSW Government to avoid its ongoing responsibilities for managing the future of megalopolis Sydney. It is transparently clear that dams offer no solution to the problem of flood mitigation in the age of climate-change-induced extreme weather events. Record rainfall means record floods, and building on floodplains must be stopped, Around Australia, effort must be put in to assisting people already living on floodplains to move elsewhere.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in respect to the above project, which I object to.

As a small child, my mother and I were evacuated to the Blue Mountains during the war. I lived in Sydney for 75 years and was a regular visitor to the mountains during those years, for bushwalking and other recreational activities.

I oppose the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam for the following reasons:
• the further damage to the natural environment;
• the further damage to the indigenous cultural significance of the area;
• the destruction of the habitat for endangered species; and
• the potential loss of World Heritage status for the Greater Blue Mountains area.

I ask you to consider alternatives to raising the dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
I do not believe that the water from the dam system is the only factor in the downstream flooding of the Hawksebury Nepean valley. By choosing to raise the dam wall the cultural and ecological cost would far outweigh this one mitigation exercise. I am personally very angry that the shortsightedness of previous governments has resulted in this as the preferred option. Why aren't multiple mitigation options being considered?
Historically it is no surprise that this region has seasonal flooding. The first nations people living on this river understood and planned for it. The planning of permanent settlements by previous governments should have also recognised the risks. Instead they have allowed short sighted development and when caught short decided the only solution was to shape the environment in such a drastic way as to inundate huge culturally significant tracts of land upstream.
We own property and live part time in the Cox's River catchment in Ganbenang. We border the Kanangra Boyd National Park and are appalled that the lower reaches of the Kowmung River will be affected by the proposal. This is the last classified wild river in the Sydney environs.
The PIR has ignored the previous concerns expressed in submissions to the initial EIS. I am not an indigenous person. However I think enough is enough. Subjecting the minority to the perceived "good" of the majority has been at great cost to our Traditional Owners. The PIR fails to put adequate value on the cultural heritage of in this instance the Gundungurra people. This attitude has permeated our post colonial society and needs to change.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am making a submission on the Preferred Infrastructure Report for the proposed raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam. I OPPOSE the raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam as it will cause the inundation of a large part of the Blue Mountains National Park and so destroy unique native plants, natural habitats and cultural sites in this World Heritage Area.
I previously made a submission on the original Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Dam Raising Project, opposing the Project. I was critical of the original EIS as it failed to properly recognise the true value of the Blue Mountains World Heritage: its unique irreplaceable Biodiversity, Wilderness values, Wild Rivers and Indigenous Cultural Heritage.
Many other community members from all over NSW made submissions expressing similar concerns.
The subsequent PIR has essentially ignored the concerns of the community and furthermore concluded that environmental issues are of even less concern than stated in the original EIS.
However raising Warragamba Dam wall will result in the inundation of the lower Kowmung River a listed Wild River under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The inundation will destroy one of the last habitats of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and destroy Grassy Box woodland, a critically endangered ecological community.
More than 1200 identified Indigenous cultural sites will be inundated by the raised wall, which represents a major destruction of the cultural heritage of the local Traditional Owners the Gundungurra people. The Gundungurra Traditional owners have called for the protection of their cultural sites within the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to avoid a tragedy that they compare to the destruction of the Jukkan Gorge in WA.
In effect the PIR belittles the World Heritage Values of the Blue Mountains National Park and fails to take seriously our legal obligations to protect Wilderness, Cultural Heritage and Endangered Species.
I live in Sydney and have spent all my life walking, canyoning and holidaying in the Blue Mountains. The place has enormous significance to me and my family who, over several generations, have enjoyed the unique beauty of its landscapes, waterways, and its diverse native flora and fauna. The Blue Mountains is a place with a wild and rugged character that has been deservedly declared World Heritage.
I therefore once again express my strong opposition to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam as it causes unacceptable destruction of unique and irreplaceable natural and cultural heritage.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to raise serious concerns about the proposed Warragamba Dam Wall Raising and the Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) for the project.
The report fails to account for major issues raised in the over 2,500 submissions to the initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In some cases, expert reports have also been ignored. Specifically, the NSW Government has ignored the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and instead changed the boundaries of the Blue Mountains Park World Heritage Area to suit the project. This is an abhorrent miscarriage of responsibility that the NSW Government has to protect not only the environment in NSW but also Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and World Heritage. Furthermore, the report ignores concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about how the project would affect water quality in the dam. The water in the dam is already at risk from recent flood events. Raising the dam wall would not increase water security as it would not decrease the risk of blackwater events during periods of high flow.
The project would also have unacceptable serious and irreversible impacts to the environment and biodiversity protected under the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act (2016) (BC Act) and Commonwealth Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) (EPBC Act), including a multuitude of MNES. The report downplays impacts to 5,700 hecatres of the National Park, including 1,300 hectares in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The impacts of the inundation would include Kowmung River, a declared 'Wild River' under the National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974), multiple Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) listed under the BC Act and EPBC Act and threatened species including the Regent Honeyeater and Camden White Gum (which is recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the World Heritage listing). It would be impossible to offset these impacts under the Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) in NSW, with the scale of impacts, and the integrity of the environment to be impacted, meaning it would be impossible to obtain like-for-like offsets. It is undeniable that a major net-loss in biodiversity would occur. This, therefore, evidently fails the principles of avoid, minimise and offset under the BC Act.
Further to impacts to biodiversity and the environment, the proposal would have a devastating impact on Aboriginal heritage, by flooding over 1541 identified heritage sites. The PIR again disregards concerns held by Traditional Owners and does not address major issues in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment identified by the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water as well as the International Council on Monuments and Sites. I note 'mitigation strategies' in the initial EIS were centred on increasing awareness of Aboriginal heritage that would be lost within the area to be impacted, such as by creating photographic recording storlyines of specific heritage places. This is a laughable attempt at covering the permanent impacts that would occur and the PIR does not adequately address this nor the concerns over these impacts that the Gundungurra community members have. Again, this does not align with the principles of avoidance and minimisation enshrined within the concept of ecologically sustainable development. Indeed, the proposal is anything but sustainable and would not provide a benefit to the community that is comparable to the deleterious impacts it would cause.
However, there are alternatives to raising the dam wall that would protect floodplain communities. For instance, running the dam at lower levels and using the existing desalination plant in Sydney to supplement water demand in periods of drought. Furthermore, the dam raising itself would not prevent future floods, with 45% of floodwaters impacting the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley derived from areas outside of the Warragamba Dam catchment. No matter how high the wall is constructed, it will not fully remove flood risk in Sydney.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. My main objections relate to impact on the World Heritage area; effectiveness of the measure to reduce flooding in western Sydney and the existence of less destructive alternatives. I no longer live in Sydney but have hiked in the Blue Mountains in my youth and value the wonderful natural values that will be destroyed if the wall is raised.
World Heritage and adjacent
The World Heritage Committee of UNESCO has advised against raising the wall and flooding the country upstream, necessitating changes to the boundaries of the World Heritage area.
Approximately 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks will be flooded by the raising of the wall and this includes 1,300 hectares inside the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This means drowning of ecosystems and species that are already threatened and includes habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. This seems a backward step at a time when our federal government is attempting to arrest the extinction trend.
Traditional Owners have been ignored and their documentation of over 1500 cultural heritage sites has been ignored.
Effectiveness
Raising the dam wall is unlikely to meet the flood mitigation purpose because:
1. Hawkesbury-Nepean flooding results from various rivers and watercourses, of which only an estimated 55% arise in country within the Warragamba dam catchment. Thus, raising the Warragamba dam wall will have zero impact on a little under half of potential floodwaters.
2. Raising the wall is likely to be used to justify continuing flood plain development, which in itself takes away natural groundcover, substituting asphalt and concrete and adding to the runoff feeding the flood. We should instead be finding ways to subsidise people in the lowest-lying parts of the floodplain to move elsewhere and re-establishing fields and bush there. With climate change, this becomes ever more urgent (see 4.)
3. There are chokepoints on the Hawkesbury which will still operate to intensify flooding, again indicating that abandoning development on the floodplain would be a wise course.
4. Rain falls with increasing intensity as global warming escalates. Air holds approx. 7% more water vapour for every 1°C of temperature increase and Australia is close to an increase of 1.5°C already as emissions continue to rise. In these circumstances, there is absolutely no guarantee that a higher wall will avoid flooding in western Sydney. Certainly not in the longer term and not if development proceeds. Note that the new airport will have vast expanses of hard surface and is likely to add to levels of runoff (unless piped directly to the sea). I do not know if this is proposed but assume not.
5. Another strategy would be to reduce the level at which the dam may be spilled and attempt to mitigate the situation when flooding appears imminent but before flooding begins.
Thank you for your attention

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains my entire life and am deeply concerned about the impact the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall will have on the native wildlife and the world heritage area. In particular the raising of the wall does not consider the traditional owners, with over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites to be inundated by the Dam proposal. You need to reconsider your actions and the implications for the natural environment and future generations.
Yours sincerely,

To project and planning committee,
I am writing to oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam. I believe that the decision to raise the wall would not be in the best interest of safety, cultural, or ecological concerns.
Foremost, the safety of the Nepean-Hawkesbury residents would be better served by addressing other lacking flood infrastructure. As a long-time member of an Emergency Service who was deployed into these areas, it was clear to me that the majority of floodwaters in the last events did not derive solely from the dam itself, but rather the surrounding catchments. I fully believe that the raising of the dam would be inneffectual in mitigating future events.
Secondly, I find it disturbing that the project has not had any meaningful liason or discussion with the Traditional Owners who's extand and ongoing cultural sites would be lost in the event this plan proceeds. I encourage the project to consider not only the historic trauma already experienced by traditional custodians, but the impact any further loss would create.
Lastly, as a Conservation Ecologist, I find it unsettling that there has been such a disregard to the ecological impacts the plan poses on Threatened Ecological Communities and the habitats held therein within the catchment area.
I would urge the committee to reconsider the plan in it's current state, to begin consultation with Traditional Owners, to re-assess the true ecological threats posed by this plan, and to seriously consider the viable alternatives.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The alternatives to raising the wall such as improving evacuation routes and lowering the full supply level have not been explored, nor responded to, adequately. This evidences faulty justification for the project overall.
Yours sincerely,

No to raising dam wall

I am writing to you to say, “No to raising the wall on Warragamba dam.” The reasons being:
Protection of Burragorang valley, near Warragamba
The southern Blue Mountains is an extensive and rich cultural landscape belonging to the Gundungurra people.
The construction of Warragamba Dam some sixty years ago flooded and thereby destroyed a large proportion of the cultural heritage and dreamtime stories of the Gundungurra people. This is further reason for protecting what remains today.
The proposed raising of Warragamba Dam will cause repeated flooding of the valley and will irreparably damage and destroy the remaining Indigenous archaeological sites.
We saw the outcry when the Aboriginal sites were destroyed recently in WA. No longer will people remain quiet when sacred Aboriginal sites are destroyed, especially when we hear that over 1,200 culturally significant Aboriginal sites are at risk.
Protection of Blue Mountains World Heritage Area
If Warragamba Dam wall is raised by 14 metres, it will have a serious impact on critical ecosystems in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. If the plan goes ahead 4,700 hectares of Blue Mountains National parks and 65 kilometres of wild streams would be inundated by water backing up from the dam wall.
This would result in the loss of Indigenous sites as well as flora and fauna on which World Heritage listing relies.
As we know the Great Barrier Reef is in danger of losing its World Heritage listing, let’s not have the Blue Mountains be at risk as well.
More homes at risk with flooding
The then NSW Emergency Services Minister David Elliot is reported as saying that: “Raising the Warragamba Dam wall could pave the way for the release of more land for development in Sydney’s north-west”. Minister Elliot reportedly went on to say; “the controversial project to raise the height of Sydney’s largest reservoir by at least 14 metres could benefit the future growth of the area’.
Let’s not make the mistake that was made in Brisbane whereby many people believed that the Wivenhoe dam was supposed to prevent flooding, and houses were built in the flood area. Many of the homes inundated in the 2011 floods were new homes, that had been built in the flood zone.
Whilst the plan to raise the dam wall has been promoted as a flood mitigation scheme, why are some of the county’s largest insurers, (who one might think would benefit from such a project) withdrawing their support to lift the wall of the dam?
Recommendation
Whilst the plan to raise the dam wall has been promoted as a flood mitigation scheme, it would cause inundation of sensitive parts of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area including hundreds of Indigenous sites, that cannot be replaced, so that is why I say, “NO” to raising the dam wall.
Instead, the existing dam’s full supply level should be lowered to permit part of the existing capacity to be used for flood mitigation, and to use the existing desalination plant for any shortfall.
Additionally
Whilst I am no engineer, I cannot image that those who designed the dam ever imagined that the dam wall would be raised by an additional 14 metres. My worry is could the proposed construction compromise the existing dam wall? Has any study been done to estimate the impact should the work planned to be undertaken result in a catastrophic failure of the existing dam wall?

I can confirm that I have not made any political donations in the past two years.

11 December 2022.