Warragamba Dam Raising

I note that it is 12 months since the previous EIS proposing the dam wall be raised and that this latest proposal is practically identical.

Nothing significant has changed except that in the meantime the project has been granted the status of State Significant Infrastructure. As the project is now no longer subject to the normal environmental checks and balances it is inevitable that it will be approved after the government goes through the procedural motions.

Nevertheless I wish to submit my formal objection and refer to the Findings and Recommendations I made 12 months ago. I don’t expect this will have any influence whatsoever on the foregone approval of this government and lament the waste of money and environmental damage to be caused for minimal downstream flooding mitigation benefit.

Other options to improve flood management should be implemented immediately:
• in particular, require WaterNSW to develop a protocol to lower the Dam’s full supply level on a flexible basis, to provide a variable flood mitigation zone
• commence a rolling program to buy-back properties in the most vulnerable areas of the floodplain

Also, a State Environmental Planning Policy should be prepared prohibiting further development on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain, forever.

Please see attached detailed submission.

I believe the decision to raise the Dam wall is stupid and dangerous.
I understand that many people during their lives had not experienced floods in the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system - well now unfortunately they have in 2020, 2021 and 2022 - just like the rest of us old locals. Floods are a fact of life if you live on a flood plain. Look at the historical records back to 1799. My family has lived and owned farms on the Hawkesbury River around Windsor and Wilberforce NSW since 1860 and experienced every flood since. I myself have seen every flood since 1953.
There have been recorded floods in the Hawkesbury since the 1700's. So it floods with or without Warragamba Dam which opened in 1960. In fact some of the biggest floods in history occurred pre & after dam. Hawkesbury City Council does not allow building on flood plains - simply because they are designated flood plains. Other council/shires obviously have and do so at their own peril - or rather those of the poor home owners. Imagine the disaster that will occur in 5, 10 or 20 years time if they raise the dam wall & allow more developers to build on the flood plains. Who will be around to take responsibility for this decision when that disaster occurs - no one! Even the insurance companies were against this Raise the Dam plan.
We need well considered and researched long-term safe urban planning, not knee-jerk reactions to raise the Dam wall and let people build on flood plains - that in my opinion is dangerous.

In addition I am not in favour of the damage to the World Heritage National Park .

I object to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall 14 metres for the purpose of flood control because doing so will have severe adverse impacts on the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park, and on sites of significance to the Gundungurra people, and on the animals and plants which depend upon the National Park for food and habitat. Animals that do so include the koala and the Regent Honeyeater, both of which are species threatened with extinction in NSW.
No flood control dam ever prevents the most severe floods. This is particularly true in north-western Sydney where nearly half of the waters that flood the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain originate below Warragamba Dam or outside its catchment. There are better options to reduce the risk to existing and future residents of the north-western Sydney floodplain than raising the Warragamba Dam wall.
1. Stop putting people in harm’s way. The first and most practical step is for the Government to prevent any further homes being built on the floodplain rather than allowing the population on the floodplain to increase by more than 130,000 people by 2050 as currently proposed.
2. Provide alternative flood storage in Warragamba Dam. Lowering the full storage level of Warragamba Dam by 12 metres would free space for flood control. This could be implemented immediately and would have no upstream environmental impacts. Independent experts have demonstrated that this flood management strategy, coupled with use of current and new desalination plants, would protect Sydney’s water security and be more cost effective than raising the Warragamba Dam wall (Khan (2012), Inquiry into adequacy of water storages in NSW. A submission to NSW Parliament: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/52166/0025%20Dr%20Stuart%20Khan.pdf).
3. Improve evacuation routes. Previous NSW Government investigations have found that effective evacuation is the only measure that guarantees a reduced risk to life in the Hawkesbury-Nepean River valley. As floodwaters are sourced from many catchments, and low-lying parts of the current roads are cut early as floodwaters rise, a program of upgrading roads to allow evacuation at higher flood levels would dramatically increase the safety of residents.
4. Help the most flood prone residents to relocate through a voluntary home buy-back scheme similar to that being implemented in Lismore. About 5,000 houses on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River floodplain are at very significant risk of flooding (below 1:100 historical flood risk level) and a further 8,000 houses are at significant risk (below 1:500 historical flood risk level).
A voluntary scheme to buy-back homes on the floodplain at Lismore commenced in October 2022. A similar scheme was used to assist the relocation of the Brisbane River valley town of Grantham after the 2011 Queensland floods. A similar scheme should be implemented to buy-back the most at-risk homes in north-western Sydney.
The alternative flood management strategies could be designed to simultaneously provide additional benefits including greater protection for the most flood prone residents, safer roads, a more vibrant agricultural sector, more recreation opportunities, a healthier environment and improved water security.
Requested action
Instead of raising the Warragamba Dam wall, please implement alternative flood management strategies similar to those outlined above.
Yours faithfully
Paul Toni

PDF file attached.

The raising of the dam wall is a project being led by homeowners and business owners who took a risk on purcashing cheap property in flood prone lands and are now asking for everyone else to foot the bill for a potential fix to their problem, as they dont like paying the bill when the risk comes due. The Hawkesbury region has been prone to flooding since before colonisation, and this is part of why it is such a fertile area, perfect for farming. There are many rivers feeding into the valley, and 2 floods could have totally different primary sources of floodwater volume. Damming Warragamba will only mitgate one of the 5 rivers that contribute to this. It will however cause untold harm and flooding upstream. But the Hawkesbury residents dont care, as its not their problem then. The dam is not designed for extra height, and has already moved downstream a lot further than was expected by this point in its life. Raising the wall will increase the risk of failure. The betetr solution would be to allow some water release when events are coming strong, and also to stop immediately all development in flood impacted lands of 1/100 or less. The only allowanble development should be playing fields and agriculture.

I object to the project on the grounds of the potential for significant impact on Aboriginal heritage values, including intangible values such as those arising from song lines. The advice given to the NSW government by its own heritage agency is that insufficient thought has been given to the significance of these values and the potential impact of the project. I understand that the project is proposed as a flood mitigation measure, however, in my view it is unacceptable that our First Nations people are being asked to make a sacrifice of this kind in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change brought about by decades or centuries of decision-making from which First Nations people have been almost entirely excluded.

Objection to Raising the Warragamba Wall
I object to raising the dam wall because the reasoning is seriously flawed. It is trying to address issues caused by poor long term planning in a number of important areas with a short-term solution.
These issues include:
1. The impact it will have on the Greater Blue mountains World heritage Area would be permanent. The Habitat of critically endangered species including the Regent Honeyeater, Koala colonies and Sydney's last Emu population would be drowned or displaced by a raised dam wall.
We have to stop the ongoing impact on the few remaining natural wilderness and the Aboriginal cultural heritage sites areas left in NSW. It is like a death of a thousand cuts. It has been well documented displaced animals suffer from pushback by other species defending their territory for available food, water, and habitat nesting/breeding sites. Aboriginal cultural heritage and sacred sites cannot be replaced.

2. Lack of residential development in the Sydney basin. The single dwelling developments supported by this government and developers is a waste of finite valuable land. The population of London UK in 2022 of 8.8M is concentrated on 5,598 sq km. Sydney’s population in 2022 of 5.48m is concentrated 12,368 sq km. The cost of building more and more infrastructure to support an ever-expanding urban sprawl is not sustainable or unaffordable. There are very efficient planning models being developed in other countries that we should be adopting.

3. Planning for increased demand for clean water by a growing population. Clean water is going to become increasingly important. Western Sydney is a sprawling urban area of concrete, backyard pools and poor water management.

Raising the dam wall is only a short-term solution in addressing Sydney’s demand for water. The money wasted on raising the dam would be better spent on revisiting water filtration of wastewater and storm water, introducing development restrictions on backyard pool construction, increasing domestic water collection and filtration for domestic use, and a second desalination plant.

4. Poor planning for inundation by flooding. I have been searching for Flood Reports on the Hawkesbury Nepean River that include rising sea levels as part of the modelling. Rising sea levels will contribute to severe inundation.
The most recent flood report 2022 only covers modelling based on various rain events.
It has been scientifically reported that the ocean sea levels are rising more rapidly, and that the ocean levels could increase by at least 4 meters by the end of the century.
This has the effect of changing stream flows, and causing increasing inundation due to stream flow backup during extreme rain events.
The impact on development along the Hawkesbury Nepean River valley of all commercial and residential developments, and supporting infrastructure built at taxpayers’ expense would be put at increased risk of forced redundancy. The river valley would be uninsurable and unliveable in the future due to the impacts of climate change.
This is already happening in other parts of the state like Lismore. We should be learning from what is already happening and stop development on flood plains.
Raising the Warragamba Wall to reduce the risk of future flooding is a propaganda lie. 60% of the flooding occurs below Sackville due to overland flow.
People should not be lied to about their safety and encouraged to spend their hard earned money moving to a river valley that will be impacted by increasingly intense rain events and stream back flow due to rising sea levels that has not been modelled.
It is time we learned from the mistakes of the past and make decisions for long term success. We need to review development of the Hawkesbury Nepean River Valley.
Raising the Warragamba Wall will not stop future flooding and will not fix Sydney's water shortage.
We need practical solutions to the issues I have briefly identified because the path we are traveling down at the moment will become a very costly lesson for future generations to fix.

To whom it may concern,

There are very few properly wild places left in the world. And yet fewer that are on the doorstep of any of the worlds big cities. Here we are blessed with one, and should preserve it.
In the midst of one of this planets great extinction events, caused by us, this is more important than ever.
You don't get a do-over when destroying wilderness. You can rebuild or re zone housing built in the last 30 years. You can't recreate wilderness thousands of years in the making.
Yours sincerely,

I object to the subject proposal.

I acknowledge and accept the Department’s disclaimer and
declaration.

The essence of my submission of 3rd November 2021
on the earlier EIS for this scheme was that the downstream flooding issue needs
to be mitigated by a combination of approaches rather than by simply
transferring the flooding and its impact upstream. Central to a composite
solution would be a moderate lowering of the Full Supply Level (FSL) to create
a water detention zone rather than raising the dam wall. Obviously this would
need to be coupled with numerous other measures including managed releases
before forecast major rain events and presumably commissioning another
carbon-neutral desalination plant.

It would I believe be possible to arrive at a bundle of
measures that would make a lower FSL entirely tolerable.

However the Submissions Report by WaterNSW is completely
dismissive of the lower FSL option.

It looks very much like the desired answer was arrived at
first and the rationale was subsequently crafted to suit.

To be trumpeting about ‘putting people before plants’ is
shameless sophistry reminiscent of ex-President Trump. It involves a false
dichotomy totally divorced from finding an optimal solution to a very difficult
public policy problem.

What is required is a solution that meets the reasonable
needs of people living on or near the floodplain without diminishing the little
that is left of the nation’s natural systems or the remnant heritage of
indigenous Australians.

There needs to be much more serious consideration of a
package of measures that will deliver an optimal outcome – not the approach
currently proposed which is simply about creating divisiveness.



Tom Fox

To whom it may concern,
I object to the plans to raise the Warragamba dam wall and believe that it will destroy many important ecological areas. This upstream inundation, would endanger countless plant and animal species, destroy Sydney’s last wild river - the Kowmung - and risk the Blue Mountains World Heritage Listing itself.
This plan will ultimately benefit lining the pockets of property developers and has dismissed the concerns of many thousands of tax payers who ultimately are funding this objectionable project, and who are against it being carried out, yet whose voices are being dismissed.
I am previously from close to this area and am aware of the pristine nature of the area in question and believe it should be kept as it is for the best interests of flora, fauna and those who enjoy this beautiful area. Thank you for considering.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Do not raise the dam wall, it is illogical, dangerous and ignores all sage advice.
If you continue to allow greed and self-interest to rule your decsion-making you will pay the price; listen to those around you who know better and show some respect, particualrly to the traditional custodians of the land.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 25 years. I choose to live here because of the abundance of unique natural beauty. I bushwalk extensively in the Blue Mountains National Park and I am a member of a number of NPWS bushcare groups and work in areas in both the lower and upper mountains. It is imperative that this unique World Heritage area is preserved for present and future generations to enjoy. It is also of utmost importance to protect this area for the preservation of many endangered, vulnerable and rare fauna and flora species. This is why I cannot support any element of the government proposed Warragamba Dam wall raising project.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park, in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO's World Heritage list in recognition of its outstanding universal value for the whole of mankind. Raising Warragamba Dam wall and the consequent damage to the natural and cultural sites in the area would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia's obligations under World Heritage Convention.
An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Park, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project. This include
• Kowmung River
• Rare and vulnerable eucalyptus species - Camden white gum
• Habitat for endangered species - Kowmung hakea and Solanum armourense
• Habitat for critically endangered Regents Honeyeater.
Raising the dam wall will lead to the destruction of more than 50 recognised indigenous heritage sites.
Raising the dam wall will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury - Nepean Valley downstream from the dam.
Again, this is why I am strongly opposed to the government proposed Warragamba Dam wall raising project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wholeheartedly oppose this state government's move to raise the height of Warragamba Dam. The damage that this will do to our precious natural environment in the upper reaches of the Burragorang Valley is unacceptable. No "putting plants above people" is a cynical exercise by the government to garner votes from the flood affected people who can't see that this is just a bandaid attempt at flood mitigation in a valley that has numerous tributaries and rivers - unbridled by dams - that will still flood the Nepean-Hawkesbury flood plain regardless.
I do not want to see more forest destruction from a government who has been hellbent on destroying nature since Mike Baird usurped Premier Barry O'Farrell.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising the dam wall is problematic.
1. It will destroy bushland, native flora and fauna.
2. Stop building on floodplains. Raising the wall simply creates a false sense of security.a
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Introduction:
I oppose and vote No to raising Warragamba Dam wall because our iconic World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park (NP) is critical to our future in this time of climate change that threatens people, plants and animal species.
For me personally, this NP is a gift from our ancestors to be maintained in its purest form for all generations now and future. The benefits are innumerable, including mental health, physical health from walking and social well-being. The NP provides recreation for the local community, is an easy commute now from Sydney and for tourists.
Dismissing Community Concerns
Significantly, this report does not do justice to the 2,500 submissions by community members and government agencies that raised concerns. Our voice is not to be taken lightly. We live in a democracy; not an autocracy.
Fancy even thinking about changing the boundaries of the NP that is recognised as unique by UNESCO World Heritage Committee. This move is so dismissive to Australians (past and present) who fought and are fighting with passionate conviction, knowledge, and time that this area is precious and deserves full protection with no tampering.
Furthermore, Warragamba Dam is Sydney drinking water. So, to have the concerns raised by Sydney Water and Health NSW dismissed is unconscionable. Healthy drinking water is critical to life. Raising the dam wall will be detrimental to the health of millions. Not worth the risk.
Downplaying the destructive role the raised dam wall would have on the World Heritage and National Parks is ‘greenwashing’
The damage from the raised wall would be catastrophic to 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which are in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Yet, the following are particularly at risk:
• Kowmung River, unique eucalyptus species that have outstanding universal value, habitat for endangered and critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last
Emu population. Australia already has a reputation for leading the way to the 6th extinction (absolutely unenviable).
Voice of First Nations People
In 2022 and beyond this ongoing disregard for the Voice of Australia’s original inhabitants is disgraceful. We get upset at the destruction of valued icons such as the EIFFEL TOWER and our Cathedrals. The same respect needs to be extended to the First Nation’s sacred sites. Traditions that have developed and sustained people for more than 60,000 years. We have much to learn and value from these traditional sites. Why destroy 1541 identified cultural heritage sites: all because we modern settlers built on a flood plain despite having the knowledge that it was not safe practice. Building on a flood plain is definitely not best practice and destroying sacred sites is vandalism.
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. Time to change and find alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall of which several have been proposed with sound justification.
There are alternative options
First, raising the wall will not solve the flooding problem for many residents and to pretend otherwise is propaganda. On average 45% of floodwaters come from inflows downstream to the Warragamba Dam catchment area. So, homes downstream in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley will continue to flood. What a lie is being perpetrated on these people who have suffered enough.
Multiple alternative options that were researched and reports/submissions that included a cost-benefit analysis were dismissed, that is not assessed by the EIS. This is a serious gap and once again we, the taxpayers and people in direct fire of disaster are handed an appalling and destructive option for what? The solution needs to include multiple mitigation options and costed over the long term.
Therefore, on the evidence provided by multiple groups to mitigate flooding disasters, I say NO to raising Warragamba Dam wall. Secondly, do not grant building permits on any flood plain now or in the future.


Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I have reviewed the Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) and accompanying information and strongly object to this project proceeding. I am extremely disappointed that the matters raised in my submission to the project EIS of 17 October 2021 have not been taken seriously or adequately addressed.
The flood risk that this project seeks to address is not in any way solved by this damaging proposal, and in fact only increases long term risks and potential damage.
The justification in PIR Section 7.2 is totally inadequate and not warranted, and this development does not constitute ecologically sustainable development. It results in significant and irreversible loss of biodiversity and serves to increase carbon emissions to the atmosphere. No realistic offsetting arrangements are possible.
Destruction of world heritage listed national park values is completely unacceptable and the proposal would represent an international embarrassment for Australia.
Realistic alternatives to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall have been dismissed without reasonable investigation or assessment.
This proposal should not proceed.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.
The report has attempted to downplay the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks. Habitat for the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater wil be inundated as well as several threatened ecological communities.
The Report has not appropriately assessed cultural heritage in a meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall have been dismissed.
This proposal must not go ahead.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.
Raising the wall will cause unnecessary damage to the World Heritage area and its natural and cultural values. The areas that will flood because of the raising of the wall are located mostly along waterways, habitats in these areas are important for many threatened and declining species and are rarely found in as good condition as those found in our larger national parks. These areas need to be high on our priority list for protection, not only for the known threatened species that inhabit the area, but the habitat values to all species including those declining but not yet listed.
Raising the dam wall will likely not protect the communities living on the floodplains in Western Sydney, as much of the water affecting these areas is not from above the wall. Climate change will bring more extreme weather, including heavy rainfall events that the wall will not be able to control, therefore a multipronged, more open-minded approach is needed.
As a mother and an environmental educator, I feel very strongly about the protection of these places, our unique wildlife that inhabit them, and the cultural values that they hold for First Nations people dating back tens of thousands of years. Raising the wall would be a devastating nail in the coffin for many declining species and for cultural heritage. We have an obligation to leave our beautiful country in as good or better condition for future generations, but if projects such as this go ahead my son and his children will be living in a far more ecologically and culturally impoverished Australia than I have been fortunate enough to experience.
Yours sincerely,

Please find the attached submission by the Australian Foundation for Wilderness (Wilderness Australia) in response to the exhibition of WaterNSW’s Preferred Infrastructure Report for the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam.

Camden Council is aware of community concerns regarding the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. It is noted that the project will not reduce the impact of flooding events in the Camden LGA. However it is acknowledged that should the state and federal governments invest the estimated $1.4 billion to implement this project that this will limit funding available to manage flood impacts in the Camden LGA. Council is unable to consider the matter fully within the public exhibition period and will provide further comments once endorsed by Council in February 2023.