Warragamba Dam Raising

The expansion of the dam will significantly endanger the regent honeyeater along with other bird species and the surrounding ecosystem. It would be wise to reconsider the long term impact that this expansion will have. Perhaps more collaboration with environmental scientists would benefit in gaining more clarity about how you should proceed. Thank you for considering my opinion. :)

I was alerted to this proposed project by BirdLife Australia. Research conducted by that organisation suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. I agree with Birdlife Australia that protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
Even the draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.” In the light of this I strongly oppose the proposal to raise the dam level.

I live in the Blue Mountains and feel privileged to live in a World Heritage Area and in a community where the Gundungurra and Dharug custodians invite all community members to support the custodianship of their tradtional country. I have read information about the proposal from scientific and cultural sources. I do not support the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall as it will severely and unjustifiably impact on the traditional custodianship and the pristine river environments and habitats.

I spend a lot of time walking in the Greater Blue Mountains, including several trips to and along the Kowmung River. I am very concerned about the proposed project and strongly object to it.

The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history abusing Indigenous rights, recently being barred from the world bank. Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS. The integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning.

The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park, in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s prestigious World Heritage list in recognition of the Blue Mountains Outstanding Universal value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. 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.

Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention mean it is critical for the Blue Mountains World Heritage site to be managed to protect its ecological integrity and authenticity. Any damage within its boundaries is completely unacceptable and inconsistent with World Heritage management principles.

Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed. 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 many 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 comprehensively 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.

Although in favour of infrastructure projects especially after the tumultuous years of 2020 and 2021, I must object to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. This project would devastate large areas of pristine wilderness in the wonderful and tourist attracting Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Flooding more of the Burrargorang Valley will also put the endangered Regent Honey under severe stress. The extra water capacity could be achieved by dredging the silt build up from the bottom of the lake and excavating some material from the foreshore to increase the depth. Please register my objection, Colin Tasker, Gymea Bay.

I am strongly opposed to the Warragamba Dam Raising Proposal. In fact, I am angered by the fact there is even a need for me and others to have to write this submission in relation to a proposal that has such blatant disregard for our endangered natural heritage, including significantly the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and to the population of endangered Greater-gliders that has been impacted heavily by the 2019/20 bushfires.

I do understand the motivation of proponents that raising the dam wall would provide some assistance in mitigating major floods and the impact to downstream communities although I note that experts also question whether raising the dam wall will fully mitigate such risk. I fear that in part there are those who to seek to gain by raising the wall, yet more land downstream will be considered 'safe' and therefore valuable to property developers.

What isn't in doubt is that raising the dam wall will have a major destructive impact on the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and the many endangered species of animals and plants that live there. The Regent Honeyeater in particular is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild.  How can anyone in conscience propose the extension of the Dam in these circumstances!!! To do so would demonstrate blatant disregard to protect our environment in an increasingly fragile and climate ravaged world. The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.

My understanding is that modelling by BirdLife Australia indicates that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority. There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”. The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.
There are suggestions that the impact on the Regent Honeyeater population (and that of other threatened species) would be somehow reduced by an offset program. Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater. There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species. My own personal research and experience in relation to birds and other animals is that many species are totally dependent on the environmental characteristics of specific locations to survive, destruction of such sites leads to significant impact on the ability of affected species to survive.
I reiterate my strong opposition to this proposal. For the sake of my grandchildren and the grandchildren of everyone involved in reviewing this proposal now is the time to be strong and take the measures to protect our environment and to take brave decisions to set aside proposals that will damage the environment and lead to the loss of yet more species.
Thank You.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species. The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild.  Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”. The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole. I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater. Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.

Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI-8441
Margaret Reid 63 Marcia Ave. Rye.3941
I have recently come to learn of the NSW governmernment's proposal to raise the walls of the Warragamba Dam which would necessitate the flooding of the habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. I strongly oppose any legislation that threatens the habitat of any endangered species.
Now in my seventees I am deeply ashamed that my generation has so wantonly caused the destruction, degradation and extinction of Australia's flora and fauna. I wonder what has caused us to have so little regard for our precious heritage, so critical and yet so lightly disposed of. Here is yet another potential example.
With up to 50% of Regent Honeyeater's breeding and foraging territory destroyed in the 2019-20 bushfires all attempts should be put in place to preserve and protect what few we have , and this applies to any species in peril of extinction.
Birdlife has intrinsic value. Its long past time that we realised what we are doing – depriving future generations of their unique heritage.
I understand the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater states ““It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”. Why then are we even discussing this - especially as it surely conflicts with both the Federal and State Government's Captive Breeding and Release program for the bird. There can be no better place for saving the limited population than its original territory?
Experts in the field tell us that the offsets proposed are not an appropriate response to critical habitat loss, and in this case survival of the species.
My submission is unapologetically from the heart. And are we not in this century clever enough to imagine alternative options for this project, I'm sure this beautiful bird is not the only gift of nature given to us in this area.
I urge all concerned to revisit this plan to raise the dam wall and put our natural heritage first, and commit all efforts in all ways to promoting the Regent Honeyeater's survival and revival before it is too late.
_________________________________________________________________________

I oppose the proposal to heighten the Warragamba Dam. This would seriously threaten the environment of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and, in particular, will result in an irretrievable loss of breeding habitat for the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. Such a loss cannot be compensated for by any offset proposal, and would be especially grievous given the losses of Honeyeater habitat due to the recent bushfires.

The Blue Mountains are a very important part of Australia's natural heritage, so important to all Australians. We have greatly enjoyed it on many occasions when we have visited Sydney. So it is important not only from a biodiversity viewpoint but also visitor and social viewpoint.
Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention mean it is critical for the Blue Mountains World Heritage site to be managed to protect its ecological integrity and authenticity. Any damage within its boundaries is completely unacceptable and inconsistent with World Heritage management principles.
This dam will cause massive loss of biodiversity and damage to the ecology of the area , with 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.
An alternative to the Warragamba Dam wall which does not cause biodiversity loss should be sought.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.

The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”

The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 

Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.

There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.

Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”.

The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.

The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.

It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.

I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.

Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.

There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.

I understand you need more water supply in droughts but raising Warragamba Dam to the detriment of the wildlife, to which I mainly refer to the Regent Honeyeater, is unacceptable. I am overwhelmingly opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam. The Regent Honeyeater numbers are down to 350 and more than half of them breed where you are proposing. It is well known that once you take a birds breeding ground that they are most likely not to breed anymore. You may say it is just one bird but Australia has a bad record of fauna and flora extinction. We have so many on the brink at the moment it is more than embarrassing, it is a disgrace. Please don't let this be another.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.

The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species. In this case specifically the Regent Honeyeater.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites” The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
This project - unlike natural disasters which are in any event often the result of our actions -, can be prevented in the interests of birds, wildlife in general, our Nations oldest Heritage and most of all the quality of the environment for every living thing including us.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.

I object due to the destruction that will be caused to our land. The areas that will be damaged are world heritage and cultural sites that should be preserved. Aboriginal communities and art will be lost and native and local fauna and flora will be destroyed. There is other alternatives that can be made instead of raising the wall.

I am writing as someone with a work history in World Heritage management and interest in the environment. Taking into account all the facts, I strongly object to the proposal to raise the dam wall and implore the government to explore other options to address the issues of concern.

After years of careful planning, extensive scientific and environmental review and community consultation, the Blue Mountains World Heritage was inscribed on UNESCO’s prestigious World Heritage list. This was in recognition of the Blue Mountains Outstanding Universal value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. 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.

Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention require the Blue Mountains World Heritage site to be managed to protect its ecological integrity and authenticity. Any damage within its boundaries is inconsistent with World Heritage management principles.

There are many questions to be asked in relation to the review process, including:

- Why have no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken despite severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastating 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area?

- Why have the threatened species surveys been substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.

- Why was no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising outlined in the EIS?

- Why were no alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities comprehensively assessed in the EIS? Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.

As a result of these unknows, the integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning.

My name is Karen Davis and I live in St Georges Basin, NSW. I am a very keen bushwalker and birdwatcher and have been doing both for many decades.
As such I strongly oppose any raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons:
* I have walked many times in the Blue Mountains including some of the areas that this wall raising will flood at times, such as the Kowmung River and the upper Burragorang area. This is magnificent wilderness with pristine rivers and forests that must be protected for, primarily the native flora and fauna, and secondarily for future generations to enjoy.
* This area was declared a World Heritage area to protect this pristine wilderness and no-one should have a right to threaten this listing.
* The 2019/20 bush fires devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area and since then no post bush-fire field surveys have been done. This on top of an environmental assessment which has its integrity in question, with insufficient threatened species surveys undertaken per the guideline requirements.
* As a birdwatcher who has seen the Regent Honeyeater and understands the thin line it is flying to extinction I could not approve of any more of it's habitat to be destroyed. I oppose any offset strategy as there is no evidence these work and it is certainly not worth the risk to 'give it a go'. This species is in so low numbers that all habitat must be preserved. This preservation of habitat will also go a long way to save many other species that call this wilderness home and are also threatened with extinction.
* Where is the governments 'Save our Species' plan when projects like this are assessed? Stop destroying their habitat and you won't have to spend so much time and money trying to bring these species back!
* No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are in the Environmental Impact Statement. 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. More lives will be put at risk rather than saved.
* There are many alternative options to raising the dam wall and these were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
Please make Australians and particularly the residents of NSW proud by valuing what is important in the big scheme of things and DO NOT raise the Warragamba Dam Wall.
Yours sincerely,
Karen Davis

Thank you for the opportunity to make a personal submission. I am not affiliated with any political party or group and have never made any donations to any political party.
I am a very concerned Australian citizen: throughout Australia, the frequent, ongoing permanent destruction of huge parcels of natural habitat and the immediate and future consequences of such to those creatures great and small that live, feed, breed and contribute to the natural ecosystems within those environments is alarming, concerning to say the least. Alarm bells should be ringing in the ears of our politicians and government departments, and the public in general – It’s not Rocket Science; what we do now impacts on our future lives and on the lives of future generations (including future generations of fauna and flora). I fully understand the need for security of water supplies and that water is a precious commodity however proper management, foresight and common sense must prevail: should the NSW Government approve the proposal, huge areas of World Heritage-listed National Park and culturally significant land in the Blue Mountains and thousands of hectares of Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater breeding habitat (the current population is estimated only at a very concerning 350 birds!) and that also of other native fauna and flora would be at risk or lost for all time of extended flooding and potential destruction. So too, would be some of the best farming land and the livelihoods of those farming families and others living and working within the proposed region hence I agree with the following re the Regent Honeyeater but my concerns are not limited only to this species but also much wider concerns for all fauna and flora…
• I most definitely strongly oppose the said project: the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species and others who will be impacted.
• The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
• The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
• Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
• There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty-one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
• Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”.
• The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.
• The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
• It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
• I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
• Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
• There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.
• And all of the above is applicable to all fauna and flora, all creatures great and small not only including the human kind!

I repeat, it’s not Rocket Science; what we do now impacts on our future lives and on the lives of future generations (including future generations of fauna and flora). I fully understand the need for security of water supplies and that water is a precious commodity however proper management, foresight and common sense must prevail
Thank you for considering my submission.

Yours truly,
A very concerned citizen
(Retired teacher, mother and grandmother, a former SA and NSW resident, now resident of Queensland).

Submission on the raising of Warragamba Dam
10th October 2021
I have bushwalked in the Blue Mountains for over seventy years. I have walked in the area now flooded by the existing dam and walked the Kowmung and Coxs Rivers countless times. These beautiful rivers will be damaged.
These are special places to have so close to a major city like Sydney and is renowned the world over. This has been acknowledged by inscribing the Blue Mountains on the UNESCO World Heritage list in 2000.
I am concerned that alternatives to raising the dam wall have not been considered in the EIS and that putting more people on the floodplain will most likely cause more damage to property and increase the chance of lives lost in floods that will still happen.
There has been no cost benefit analysis provided in the EIS to be able to weigh up alternative strategies.
It has not been shown that it will protect people and houses on the floodplain. It will destroy valuable habitat for several endangered and critically endangered species including the critically endangered Regent honeyeater.
The EIS does not consider the environment post the 2019-20 fires in the Blue Mountains and the survey of aboriginal heritage appears to be inadequate.
I understand the Gundunggara traditional owners have not given, free, prior and informed consent to the destruction of their heritage.
An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers and 5,700hectares of national park of which 1,300 hectares are within the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by any raising of the dam wall.
I strongly oppose the raising of the dam wall. There needs to be a proper assessment of other means of protecting people living on the floodplain including offering buy-back of properties, not putting more development in flood prone areas and ensuring better egress from the area.
Yours sincerely

Robert Pallin