Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed changes to the dam.
The report continues to ignore the concerns of key stakeholders; your community (& voters!), the First Nations people. And, in your wisdom, you think its ok to dismiss the World Heritage attributes of this area. Houses and more high density living over the threatened ecological communities.
Why did the report not consider alternatives?
Plants over people - yeah, that's worked so well for our environment. You will be on the wrong side of history if this gets through. Do you want to be the ones telling your grandkids what happened to our beautiful National Parks?
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
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.
Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS. No Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
The report has attempted 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 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 report has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and in some cases expert submissions were not even addressed.
The report has announced NSW Government intention's to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
The serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
The report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I write once again in response to the current NSW Government’s Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) to mitigate flood issues on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain below the Warragamba dam by raising the dam wall. In summary, I strongly object to this reckless course of action.
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area forms part of the Greater Sydney green belt that surrounds the urban environment in which approx. 5 million people reside, work and play.
As one of these residents, I have a long and close association with this green belt and the Blue Mountains in particular extending from the 1970’s to the present day through extensive outdoor activities including bushwalking, canyoning, caving and kayaking. My present activities are a little more subdued, but include bird watching, bush regeneration and general flora and fauna appreciation and awareness.
It saddens me greatly to think that much of this generally pristine area of outstanding and unique natural heritage and high environmental value is under consideration by the NSW Government to be irrevocably destroyed under the guise of flood prevention through the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by 17 metres. In doing this, the NSW Government is seeking to justify new urban sprawl across 2,355 hectares of western Sydney floodplains.
The wild rivers of the southern Blue Mountains form a landscape that has been largely untouched by modern society. The area is home to 48 threatened plant and animal species, ancient river valleys, rare dry rainforests and hundreds of Indigenous art and marker sites. The significance of the southern Blue Mountains landscape led it to being inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2000.
The environmental devastation caused by raising the dam would see the lower Kowmung, Coxs, Nattai, Kedumba, Wollondilly and Little Rivers smothered beneath weed- infested dam mud. This would kill many plant and animal species that inhabit the wilderness area, including the vulnerable Camden White Gum and endangered Kowmung Hakea, among others.
Despite the assurances addressed in the PIR, it is still ignoring that 45% of the flood potential originates in the Grosse, Colo, Nepean, Cattai, Hawkesbury and McDonald catchments.
So, one must ask: why is the current Government so hell-bent on pushing this agenda with such urgency, despite repeated disapprovals from several government departments and agencies including, but not limited to: Minister for Planning, Sydney Water, Health NSW, NP&WS as well as advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee?
By seeming to address potential flood risk coming from one source, ie. via upstream from the Warragamba Dam, one must instead “follow the money”. The Government’s agenda, by its own volition, is to increase the population on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain. The associated direct benefits to property developers and increased state stamp duty/land tax revenue cannot be dismissed. The Government’s silence and obfuscation on this aspect speaks volumes on their true agenda. Based on the Government’s previous history, this cannot be far from the truth.
Increasing the population on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain only puts more houses and businesses at risk. Infrastructure on the floodplain is currently inadequate to address the existing population. Recent devastating floods in the area in 2022 alone, have exceeded expectations in height and frequency and make predictions in the PIR meaningless.
The PIR has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and in some cases expert submissions were not even addressed.
The PIR has announced NSW Government intention's to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
The serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the revised EIS.
The PIR also attempted 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 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 PIR has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
• The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
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.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS. Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
• On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.

The alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall
While flood-risk is an important issue facing western Sydney, raising Warragamba Dam will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and is an inadequate solution to managing flood risk. 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 addition, the NSW Government have said they want to place an additional 134,000 people on
western Sydney floodplains after the Warragamba Dam wall is raised. Housing more people on the floodplain will put thousands more lives at risk when floods occur and will only add to the serious congestion problems facing western Sydney.
However, flood risk needs to be addressed in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley so existing communities are safe from floods. Australian National University has identified four alternatives:
1. Stop putting people in harm’s way
Ensuring people don’t live on flood-prone lands will save lives and property damage when floods occur. As no dam can stop all floods, placing people in flood-prone areas is dangerous. NSW planning regulations still allow people to be housed in extremely flood prone areas below the 1:500 year flood limit.
2. Improve Evacuation Routes and Flood Forecasting
Effective evacuation is the only measure which guarantees reduced risk to life in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley during flood events. Flood evacuation roads would also solve congestion problems in western Sydney during dry times.
3. Relocate the most flood prone residents
Engaging in a buyback program of the 5000 houses which lie under the 1:100 year flood level is important option. The government’s $3.3 billion price-tag for relocation is a misleading figure, as it does not properly consider the potential figure saved in flood events, as well as economic benefits that ‘freeing up’ the floodplain can bring.
4. Alternative flood storage in Warragamba dam
Lowering the full storage level by 12m would free 795 billion litres of airspace for flood control. Combined with flood forecasting to manage the level of the dam, this would have no upstream environmental impacts, and would increase Sydney’s water security when consolidated with the continuous operation of desalination plants and water recycling. UTS research shows this would likely be a cheaper option than raising the dam wall.
When Warragamba Dam was built in 1960, the rivers of the Warragamba valley were sacrificed to provide Sydney with clean drinking water. Legislators soon wanted to protect the environmental and catchment integrity of the unique wilderness areas surrounding the dam. Since 1960, the catchment has received National Park, Wilderness, National Heritage, Special Catchment Area, Wild Rivers and World Heritage protection. It is one of the most protected natural landscapes in Australia. As such, it deserves the protection and international status we expect the NSW Government to uphold.

In conclusion, for the NSW Government to continue with their proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall by 17 metres, and flood the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, and thereby condemn many endangered species to the brink of extinction, is a travesty against biodiversity and a betrayal of the people of NSW. Future generations will be dumbfounded by the short term ideology demonstrated by this Government.
The poorly planned and clumsy justification process, demonstrated by the NSW Government, lacks scrutiny and reasoned argument. The proposal flies in the face of scientific and economic recommendations by experts in the community.
Current and future generations will be adversely affected should this irreversible decision be approved.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
This proposal violates laws and conventions on both domestic and international levels.
These environmental protections are specifically tailored to the catchment area of Warragamba, and it is not the government's place to simply ignore them, and ignore the people who live on and own these lands.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. The loss of habitat and animal species cannot be ignored. Australia is already known as the extinction capital of the world and rasing the wall will only add to this unenviable reputation. I have walked through many parts of the Blue Mountains and cannot bear the thought of seeing more pristine bushland lost forever.
Dredging the dam will increase its storage capicity by a huge amount so why not go down that track for a start.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
It defies logic that increasing the wall height of Warragamba dam would in any way mitigate the effects of flood downstream. Once the dam is full run-off would be exactly the same as now.
Moreover, the undesirable impact on the environment upstream and the large cost which cannot be justified, not to mention significant engineering problems to be overcome, speak against taking on such a project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
According to scientific evidence, hydrology modelling and every flood expert you speak to, raising the dam wall does not solve flooding problems. It simply creates bigger floods.
What kind of government settles more people in harms way, in an area known as a flood plain!?
We will lose so much through raising this dam wall. Especially at a time when anyone in the water industry knows that the days of relying on dams as our sole supply are over. There are already and the trend will increase for us to obtain water from recycled sources and rain.
Spending on this asset is not required as it will be redundant well before the end of its working life. There are cheaper, more environmentally friendly options today. Don't saddle our children with more debt paying for assets they don't need.
Yours sincerely,

Sat 26/11/2022 @ 11:33 AM
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Western suburbs and consider the proposal a travestry and a failure for the people of the outer western suburbs, Blue Mountains and the environment.
These decisions to accept a flawed plan are a travesty of justice and a blight on this government. This environment is sensitive and the idea they can just steamroll this through, ignoring the concerns of Sydney Water and Health NSW, UNESCO World Heritage Committee and the Traditional Owners.
There needs to be greater concern and stronger oversight and also full examination of the area to ensure that best practice takes precedence over monetary issues. We need the best option with the least disruption and damage to the areas to ensure the footprint left on this area is minimal.
It is actually time to ensure that our new Federal Government take interest in this enormous issue to ensure money doesn't come first and best practice does as this wonderful environment needs careful planning and extreme concern and consideration for a viable option which will stand the test of time.
Yours sincerely,

Sat 26/11/2022 @ 11:13 AM
To whom it may concern,
The community has a right to be concerned as this will change the natural environment to the detriment of all. This is purely a land grab instead of ensuring the relevant environmental issues are being addressed and I have no faith in a government which ignores the UNESCO World Heritabe Committee for the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area. Surely when the concerns of Sydney Water and Health NSW regarding the drinking water quality alone should be enough to raise the alarm.
They are totally ignoring the desctruction which will be caused threatening not only the whole environment but also threatening the life blood of the communities and the ecological threat this poses.
I have previously lived in the Western suburbs of Sydney and I am not surprised by the Governments cavalier attitude to those living in this area as they have regularly been ignored and discriminated against by the raft of politicians from the legal profession and the pressure from developers, they are not invested in this area. It is time the Government was made up of the people who really matter as a diverse group instead of filling the ranks of the Government with at last check 66% from within the legal profession. Lets get real and ensure that there is a spread of politicians from all walks of life and stop pillaging these lands which are vital to the health of these sensitive environments and find a better way.
Surely they can ensure a plan unrelated to the cost with the best outcomes ensuring best practice is the only way to go forward, maintaining an environment which will enhance rather than destroy environment and lifestyle, ensuring the long term viability which enhances the environment and future proofs this vital area for the future. Short sightedness by this Government will create more problems.
I believe it is time for the Federal Government to step in before it is too late.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I write to oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall, ostensibly to protect the residents of the flood plain, who should never have been sold land to settle there in the first place.
It is my view that the premier has changed his own previously and publicly stated position, which was reported in the Financial Review of July 12 earlier this year, and I quote:
'NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet has vowed his government will not repeat “the mistakes of the past” in allowing development on floodplains that risks lives and property.'
Now it would seem that he is willing to accept your 'Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR)' that will allow yet another residential zone on a flood plain.
If accepted, the proposed changes are very likely to to risk lives and property as well as bring about a host of other adverse effects.
Climate change is already occurring,which we are now seeing with devastating consequences as demonstrated in the floods that have occurred this year. Even if the dam wall is raised, there can be no doubt that even more severe weather events will render the proposed strategy useless. The only people to benefit from this exercise would be property developers, who appear to care not what harm they do.
Indeed, this ill-fated project will do only harm, both to people and the environment. For example, Indigenous owners have been ignored in respect of the destruction/drowning of sacred sites and cultural heritage.
In addition, the environment and our natural heritage will also suffer. It is sobering to read that 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 will be totally destroyed at a time when we need to cherish and nurture our natural environment more than ever.
I also wonder why you do not seem to have considered alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. I understand that a combination of multiple strategies has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation. However, your preferred approach will not mitigate flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean valley downstream. Concerns have been raised in 2,500 submissions, in addition to those raised by Sydney Water and Health NSW in respect of drinking water quality. Furthermore it would seem that if your recommendations are adopted, the NSW Government will be in breach of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, should the boundaries of Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area be changed. Such an act would constitute a breathtaking vandalism/destruction of our natural heritage and is totally unacceptable.
I urge all involved in this matter to reconsider and abandon raising the Warragamba Dam wall. You will be widely thanked for your foresight if you do so.
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
As a person who is passionate about our natural places, I would like to state that I oppose the dam due to a number of concerns for the environment.

This area is a World Heritage and National Park which is already under pressure with a number of flora and fauna species under threat for survival. Some of these include Grassy Box Woodland, Regent Honeyeater and Enu populations.
There are alternatives which have been ignored even though they would protect the existing floodplain.
Making the dam wall higher is not going to prevent flooding downstream, in the Hawkesburry-Nepean Valley. It could also affect the water quality.
Please do not allow this proposal to go ahead
Yours sincerely,

Mitigation by definition does not totally avoid the problem of flooding.

Problems with raising the wall:-
1) The higher dam wall will not be enough to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain in a major rain event and flood.
2) It won’t solve the problem of badly-located housing developments and the limited warning the Bureau of Meteorology can
provide, coupled with insufficient road capacity to evacuate all residents impacted within this warning time.
3) Problems with raising the wall
4) The higher dam wall will not be enough to protect the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain in a major rain event and flood.
5) It won’t solve the problem of badly-located housing developments and the limited warning the Bureau of Meteorology can provide, coupled with insufficient road capacity to evacuate all residents impacted within this warning time.
6) Raising the Warragamba Dam does not remove the risk. The Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain is fed by rainfall from four catchments, with the Warragamba Dam collecting run-off from just one.
7) A UN report assessing the state of the Blue Mountains' World Heritage listing has raised concerns about the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam. Up to 4,700 hectares of the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Parks and 65 kilometres of wilderness streams would be inundated by the 14-metre dam wall raising.
8) The resulting inundations of the Kowmung and surrounding rivers will decimate the ecological integrity of this wilderness and threaten the survival of 48 endangered plant and animal species and potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural values.
Inundation of previously non-inundated areas may harm water quality through increased level of sediment and organic material.



An alternative suggested by university hydrologists is to lower the full storage level of Warragamba Dam by 12 metres to free 795 billion litres of airspace for flood control and to operate Sydney’s desalination unit to provide additional drinking water.

Mulgoa Road which runs through the beautiful and heritage Mulgoa Valley will be subjected to a lot of heavy traffic with its consequences.


Dr Heng K Tey

To whom it may concern,
I comprehensively oppose raising the Warragamba Dam wall because...
1. it would endanger the World Heritage status of the Blue Mountains.
2. What we need are fewer houses on the floodplain, not more!
3. Since nearly half of the inundation of the floodplain comes from sources other than the dammed river, it would not eliminate flooding, merely delay the inevitable flooding of even more houses!
4. other alternatives need to be considered... like moving vulnerable properties from the floodplain, limiting population growth in the area, building flood-proof housing, etc.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains since 1983 and have enjoyed exploring its wilderness areas for over forty years. I'm completely against the proposal to raise the height of Warragamba Dam. I was hugely proud when a previous government facilitated the inclusion of our National Park in a World Heritage Area, recognised by the whole world as unique, significant wilderness worthy of the highest protection. I'm devastated that the present State government proposes to renege on that commitment to the world by sanctioning the destruction of thousands of hectares of precious wilderness, known to have "Outstanding Universal Value". I'm also incensed that the proposal has shown contempt for cultural heritage by disregarding the concerns of the Gundungurra Traditional Custodians about potential inundation of sacred sites. This would be a bigger tragedy than the Duukan Gorge debacle! The Minister cannot ignore the advice from UNESCO World Heritage Committee without bringing worldwide condemnation and trashing our standing as responsible global citizens Is that what is contemplated? Are you really so in thrall to the greedy developers salivating at the thought of mega profits through their plans to expand Greater Sydney onto some of the most hazardous flood plains we have? You surely are aware of the studies showing that much of the floodwaters in the Hawksbury/Nepean Basin come from water courses not held back by the present dam. In other words, a raising of the dam wouldn't mitigate the very problem it claims to be solving. This furphy would comdemn tens of thousands of future residents to the avoidable misery of inundation and dislocation, at unimaginable cost. Your present intent to force through a flawed and crazily expensive "fix" smacks of seriously compromised justifications which benefit a small cabal of powerful vested interests in future development. We will all pay a very high price in the future, so I plead with you to reconsider urgently. I care about protecting existing floodplain communities and hope you will consider spending the huge sums of money that a bigger dam would cost on improving their flood risk mitigation using alternative options that are publically known, but not considered in your proposal.
I find the lack of consideration, thus far, of community sentiment over this destructive proposal, is seriously eroding my respect for the processes of our State Government. The NSW Department of Planning and Environment is accountable to the voting public and should, in my view, hold a responsibility that extends beyond any electoral cycle. I will be voting based on the outcome of the response to this Preferred Infrastructure Report.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the Warragamba Dam Raising Project.
When will governments in this country start to put the environment FIRST?
I propose that all levels of governments in this country start rolling out behavioural chnage campaigns that will help everyday Australians start to shift to more sustainable lifestyles. First off, bring back water restrictions - encourage, incentivise even, people to use less water. Similarly, do the same with energy use.
Where is the government on actually walking the talk when it comes to fighting the climate crisis?! We can't just continue to build and extend projects. We MUST alter our lifestyles.
The NSW Government thinks this is a critical infrastructure project. What's critical is behaviour change in the face of a climate crisis. GET WORKING ON EDUCATING PEOPLE ON HOW TO REDUCE THEIR IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT! Raising a dam wall will not decrease flood risk in a climate crisis.
The report released by the NSW Government has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500+ community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and in some cases expert submissions were not even addressed.
Furthermore, the report has announced NSW Government intention's to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
The report has attempted 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 Dam project.
HOW CAN YOU DO THIS!??? In a climate crisis. This is absurd.
I am aghast at the fact that, despite what happened with the Juukan Gorge, over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal. Have we learnt nothing?
And finally, putting the environment aside, the report also dismissed the serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality.
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. However, alternative options were NOT assessed in the EIS - shameful.
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.
There are better alternatives. This option is a lazy one.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
"I am the Lorax who speaks for the trees, which you seem to be chopping as fast as you please"!
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
"I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues".
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot nothing is going to get better it's not".
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
We can all learn alot from Dr Seuss.
Please stop listening to the developers. They have only one agenda and that's greed.
You have no right to destroy nature. Once it's gone, it gone! No getting it back. No showing your grandchildren these amazing places. Instead, they will remember you for what you have done to their future. Do you want to hang your head in shame?
We asked you to protect us and our future. Not destroy it. This is a democracy. Or so I thought it was 😪
Please listen.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam. There has been strong community opposition to this which has been ignored. Crucial World Heritage areas will be destroyed by inundation if this goes ahead. As well, a significant numer of identified cultural heritage sites will also be lost if this project goes ahead. There has been no consideration of any viable alternative options and despite the raising of the wall, flooding will still occur downstream in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
It's essential that these concerns are taken into consideration and alternatives considered.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
• The report has all but dismissed the concerns raised in 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and in some cases expert submissions were not even addressed
• The report has announced NSW Government intention's to ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
• The serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
• The report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
• 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.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS. No Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
• On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the raising of the dam wall.
The cultural and environmental losses are too significant. In my view, maintaining cultural heritage and the environment are more important than protecting individual homes from flooding. Homes can be rebuilt in different areas, but we will never get back the impact humans are making on the environment, especially the loss of species.
Building on flood plains is not a long term solution. The NSW government has continually ignored the traditional owners of the land and has not properly considered alternative solutions.
As someone whose family originally came from the Burragorang Valley, this issue is extremely important to me.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
What future legacy are we leaving our children and grandchildren in this spectacular special place colonialists have called the Hawkesbury Region? Does the human race need to continue to destroy everything beautiful or worthwhile? We need to reverse this path of destruction that we are creating now, not increase the damage!
Yes, I agree people need to be housed well so that this great nation can prosper, but how we do it is up to us.
The proposal to raise the Dam Wall is short sighted and the loss of World Heritage National Parkland is just not acceptable.

• 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.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS. No Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
• On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.

Please try to think creatively instead of just reaction thinking! We are supposed to be the 'clever country'. Lets show the world what best practice looks like!
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
I do not support the raising of the dam. As a life time liberal voter I will now vote labour, so strong is my opposition to the proposal.

Yours sincerely,