Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I can't understand why the 2,500 previous submissions against this Warragamba Wall raising project have been disregarded except that the NSW Libral Govt wants to push the project ahead against s objections.
We have see what happens to the poorest members of the community when floods occur on floodplains. It is on those floodplains that those people can afford to buy a home and they are the ones who suffer over and over again.
The raising of the wall will not stop the floodplain from flooding. That is the nature of a flood plain. All it will do is enrich the property developers who build inadequate housing there.
In addition the new EIS ignores the requests of the our first nations people and justifies the destruction of our World Heritage Blue Mountains area.
No contracts must be signed before next year's election is completed because those who insist that it is necessary will probably be the forgotten politicians.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you to express my dismay and disappointment at the proposal to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam.
It is said that in doing so we will avoid massive floods i fht eflood plain below the dam but this defies logic as the Nepean river joins the Warragamba River downstream of the dam. As do the Colo, Gorse and MacDonalds Rivers!
I fear that the real reason is to give weight to plans to build yat many more thousands of homes in a known "Flood Plain!" This would merely put tens of thousands of new residents at risk in the future.
It should also be noted that since so much habitat has been lost in recent years, bushfires and land clearing, we must try to preserve every square metre that we can(and must!) Thus the flooding and loss of thousands of hectares of HERITAGE LISTED pristine forests is absurd. Not to mention the huge increases to methane emmisions as the flooded forests rot at the bottom of the "new" waters.
Please reconcider this horrid plan!

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to register my sincere objections to the Warragamba Dam wall raising project. I believe the science has been clear - the IPCC and the IEA and others have demonstrated we cannot afford to lose any more critical habitats. Losing the unique habitats in the Blue Mountains is irresponsible and unnecessary.
We must adapt to global warming and its consequences. We should no longer allow development on flood plains.
First Nations custodians of these lands have made their opposition to the project very clear. We need to demonstrate our commitment to honouring their responsibility to protect these lands and our shared cultural heritage.
Please, stop this project and begin the changes we need to stop climate change.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned by the NSW Governments move to release a report that seeks to make changes to and disregards the EIS for the Warragamba Dam wall raising.
The governments 'preferred report' has not adequately taken into acccount:
• 2,500 community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021, and expert submissions
• The UNESCO World Heritage Committee by seeking to change the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
• The serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSWabout the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
I also wish to ask why are alternatives not appropriately assessed?
• There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple options have been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
• These alternative options were not assessed in the EIS - it 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
Our native wilderness heritage and species must be protected and yet the report does not address the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks and the ecological issues:
• 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 speciesdiversity 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.
• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
It appears that opening up land and developer interests are a key consideration and are at the heart of this issue.
We are no longer living in a world where we can take for granted our environmental heritage. Nor should it be development at any cost.
It concerns me greatly that this is not a transparent, balanced and insightful assessment.
To our curret NSW Government: we want to trust in you, please do not stoop to 'green washing' such an important report in order to push an agenda that is unacceptable based on an evidence based approach.
Yours sincerely,

This seems to be a naked attempt to enrichen a small group of developers, who afterall are trying to build on land that is unsuitable for development in the first place. It is akin to Dubai's World Islands in its folly.
The report dismisses without justification concerns raised by governement agencies, and naturally those raised by communities. The destruction of the Kowmung, the last great wild river in the Blue Mountains, is effectively dismissed as incidental.
It is widely known that, on average, 45% of floodwaters affecting existing floodplain communities come from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. It seems inconceivable to me that this is effectively ignored.
My father, David Dash, was among the first white people to explore and map the Kowmung. He and his friends in the Sydney University Bushwalkers would fill in the blank areas of the maps of the early 1960s. He died last year but was a vocifierous opponent of this scheme, which angered him hugely. Not just because it would destroy the bush he loved so much, but actually mostly because it does so for little or no perceivable benefit except to an already privileged few.
He, and I, are civil engineers. Neither of us has a problem with justified development. It is afterall my career, as it was his. This scheme, however, cannot be honestly justified and should not be allowed to go ahead.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Please don't raise the dam it won't stop the floods due to the bathtub effect. It will however flood and kill the surrounding trees vegetation increasing climate change effect increases temperatures and flooding.
please spend the money on dredging all the built up silt that will allow less pressure on a already broken system of political gread and corruption
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am concened that this proposal is being put forward as a short term populist solution since NSW has experienced several years of unprecedented El Nino weather conditions.
I believe that it is also a response to influential groups that might not have the best interests of the environment or first nations people at heart and whose motivations are dubious.
If this wall raising goes ahead, World Heritage listed Blue Mountains is put at further risk and so too is Country that is sacred to First Nations people.
There are reasonable sensible alternatives to this proposal, which is a response to those with vested interests and and others who do not consider the long term impacts of such a foolhardy plan.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The Warragamba Dam wall raising should not go ahead, it dismissed the concerns of the community, the traditional owners and basic common sense!!!

To whom it may concern,
I believe the NSW government decision to raise the height of the Warragamba wall is a foolish political decision and a waste of taxpayer money. The money would be far better spent helping individuals move away from flood prone areas as well as ensuring the flood plain is the city's food bowl. It is also time the govt bit the bullet and committed Sydney to a fully recycling water system.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I’m fifty something and have never entered a submission to oppose anything before. But here I am now, opposing the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.
I moved to this quiet and quaint town nearly five years ago, so I feel I should speak out
On a daily basis this would affect me and I assume all my neighbours with the constant noise and damage to roads from trucks and additional traffics. As everyone knows, our roads are substandard and simply wouldn’t cope as they are. But that’s a personal every day short term point of view.
More importantly, long term i believe is the destruction of our wildlife... flora and fauna within what I thought to be protected, National Park/world heritage listed site. You can’t just move the perimeters to suit the greedy developers. It morally should not be within anyone’s power. Our local wildlife have been pushed out and suffered enough from development, bushfires and relentless rain... this is simply cruel, as well as utterly disrespectful to the land and it’s traditional custodians
It’s time to have a heart and think of what will be lost forever to the detriment of future generations.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,I oppose the raising of the Warragamba wall for the following reasons
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
An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project.
The 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.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The proposed dam wall height increase is irresponsible. It will not stop flooding in the Windsor Richmond flood plains where water is received from the Colo, South Creek and the Nepean River. Development in the flood plain will persist. Is government going to guarantee homeowner insurance? Not likely.
And flooding more of the catchment will damage yet more archaeological sites, bushland, animal and insect habitat and is clearly unnecessary. If water supply levels fall, the de-sal plant, constructed and maintained at public cost will kick in. There is no water supply requirement for raising the dam wall. This is purely developer driven as they eye up flat flood plain land - which will still be flood prone.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

After living over 30 yrs around the Hawkesbury River I do not believe raising the wall will help anyone. Not even the developers. Please look to other ares outside Sydney to collect water and look to be better at city planning and not looking for the easy way out.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am extremely opposed to the government proposal to raise the dam wall.
It seems that the only reason for the proposal is to attempt to justify developing land that is flood prone. The Hawkesbury Nepean River catchment extends far beyond what is restricted by Warragamba Dam so raising the dam wall will not ensure currently flood prone land will no longer see flooding. The environmental and cultural losses that would occur due to the higher dam wall are far more significant than what would be gained. This opposition to the proposal is supported by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Sydney Water, Health NSW, traditional owners and the local community at large. These organisations and people are the real stakeholders of this concern not developers surveying land downstream.
I would urge serious reconsideration is required.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
It is my opinion that the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam is ridiculous and to do so would be a waste of public money. If the dam continues to be managed in the way it is currently, there will be absolutely no flood mitigation. The dam should be used like a retention basin and the water level lowered in advance of heavy rain so that flooding downstream is minimised.
I have also heard that flooding upstream will destroy aboriginal cultural sites. This will be most counterproductive to the reconciliation that Australia is trying to develop with the First Nations peoples.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the Dam,
I am an avid Bush walker and understand the ragillity of our bush and how easially natural habitat can be dammaged. Knowing the destruction of the implementation of the origional creation of the Dam had on the area Makes it seem a poor choice making it hard to justify raisng the dam to create catistrophic damge to the environment.
The rate we are destroying our natural bushland is appaling. we shuld be protecting all the bits we have left and to destroy that which is in national park land is just criminal. How can you justify the destruction of world heritage.
It has already been shown that people are against this project with the in the inital EIS. How construction will effect drinking water quality and this would also be ignoring the traditional owners wish's.
There seems to be no assesments of alternatives in the EIS and there is alternatives.
We should be looking at ourselves as custodians of this land not the lord over it. It is our duty to protect and not destroy.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to this project because it would mean:
• 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.
• Particularly the Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’; must be protected for it's pristine catchment.
• concerns of Traditional Owners must be addressed, and important information about sacred sites and 15541 cultural heritage sites that would be flooded.
• There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall to protect existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple options would be the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
• Alternative options were not assessed in the EIS.
• On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. No matter how high the dam wall is constructed, THERE IS NO ENGINEERING CERTAINTY that it would be able to prevent major flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
• this project is politically expedient. The same money should be allocated to more sustainable measures, better housing solutions and flood mitigation, and a stop to future development in flood areas.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I object to the raising of Waragamba dam and subsequent inundation of large areas of the National Park. Quite apart from the unacceptable destruction of biodiversity and habitat, and the loss of aboriginal heritage, raising the wall will encourage more development on the floodplains if Western Sydney. It won't stop flooding during large storm events, and will result in even more flooded homes downstream. The developers who make a fortune with the expanded areas do not pay compensation for inundation, the community does.
Yours sincerely,

Fri 2/12/2022 @7:13 PM
To whom it may concern,
Please, do all in your power to stop the raising of the Warragamba Dam walls.
it would be devastating, to say the least.

Fri 25/11/2022 @9:53 PM
To whom it may concern,
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Please leave the floodplains intact as a vitally important ecosystem and mitigator of future flooding events, instead of sacrificing this precious land to short-term profits, greed and unscrupulous developers.
Our children, grandchildren and future generations will thank you and benefit from our wisdom…
Sincerely,
Inge
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to let you know if my total opposition to the current proposal to raise the height of the wall of the Warragamba Dam.
This will flood large areas of wilderness and National Park, including large areas of the Greater Blue Mountains Heritage Area. It will also flood a large number of important indigenous cultural sites.
There appear to be virtually no benefits of increasing the dam height. It will slow down some flooding, but a better soulution would be to provide improved road access so residents could leave quickly and safely in a flood emergency.
Yours sincerely,