Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I would like to register my strong opposition to this plan as it threatens the Unesco World Heritage Blue Mountains upstream.
The revised EIS has failed to take into account over 2000 traditional owners, community and government agency submissions raising concerns over the impact raising the dam wall will have on this priceless piece of nature which is there for current and future generations to enjoy, and is home to a plethora of native animal species, many of which are endangered. Moreover, it does not seriously explore alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall.
I grew up in a farming community and am from Liberal / National blue blood stock but last federal election I voted Labour for the first time in my life. So did my Dad! Because of the Liberal Party's environmental policies, or lack thereof. This EIS is another example of a failure of the Liberal Party to listen to the community and I am looking forward to voting Labour at the next State election.
Yours sincerely,

I am NOT in favour of a higher dam wall that will threaten our precious, already besieged wildlife, destroy the ecological communities in which they live and ignore traditional owners' sensitivities.
We cannot trust this goverment to make decisions on our natural environment such as this, given their appalling record of ignorance and destruction, their pernicious winding back of hard earned environmental legal protections over the years.
Any understanding of climate change will tell you that extensive natural habitat is essential for our future survival and that of the other species we share this country with. Its preservation must come first. Other alternatives have been enumerated; they just need to be examined.
Thank you


Yours sincerely,

Raising the dam wall will increase risk of failure and provide no further increase of flood mitigation than lowering the “100%” level to 20-30 percent lower than it currently is.

To whom it may concern,
1. This issue is not solely about the flood plains around the Dharug people's lands.
2. Even in Armidale the other night, we were all discussing the violation that would happen should such a disasterous decision be made in favour of raising the dam wall. I mentioned that I had been supportive of Harry since 2018.
3. Ecologically, environmentally, desecrating even more of the aboriginals lands, flooding will still happen and those poor people, who are not educated enough to understand the prospects, will buy what the developers want, without understanding the severe cost to themselves and the environment around them.
4. Not only will those people pay a high price, but the taxpayer will also. Property developers are being given carte blanche to build, so of course they will - without a care for the people/animals, (flora and fauna) who will be at risk should this ridiculous proposal go ahead. It would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
5. Climate change is already here.
6. Raise the wall?
• NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Respect the opinion of NSW governtment's scientists who disagree with this plan. Respect the opinion of World Heritage. Respect traditional owners. Respect opinion of your constituants.
Do not proceed with this destructive, ill informed plan.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Please do not consider raising the dam wall, but instead look at options that provide more enduring options for Sydney without destroying any more of the beautiful, culturally significant and ecologically necessary blue mountains.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
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 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. 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 oppose the raising of the dam wall firstly, because it has been proven by scientific study that it will not solve the problem of flooding as the number of smaller creeks will continue to flood the plain. Secondly, the damage that flooding will do to a heritage area is just not worth it apart from the loss of aboriginal sites etc.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wholeheartedly do not suppor the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Once again you have chosen to ignore the advice givem by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee advice in order to pander to the developers focussing on the Nepean basin.
The Blue Mountians UNESCO World Heritage, label brings in billions of tourism Dollars. One of the biggest draw cards to tourists visiting the Blue mountains is to see and experience virtually untouched wilderness. Do you really want to risk the billions more tourist dollars for the sake of development dollars which are purely short term, there is only so much land available. Tourism dollars are virtualy infinate.
Not to mention the embarassment Australia and in particular the NSW govenrment will experience when the entire world sees you destroy a UNESCO World Heritage Area. As well as risk and destroy numeros species of flora anad fauna, many of which are already endangered, suhc as the Camden White Gum, the Platypus, the Regent Honeyeater, and Sydney's last Emu Population. This is the Koala all over again, and now your scrambling to try and save them.
You have also once again, ignored the Traditional owners in regards to the sacred sites that will be destroyed by the influx of water in that area. The Gundungarra people are strongly connected to their country and risking the distruction of their country, directly risks the health and wellbeing of Gundungarra people.
The NSW government has also dismissed the alternative proposals put forward in the EIS. With little to no regard for the fact that 45% of the floodwaters originated UPSTREAM from Warragamba Dam. This means, no matter how high the wall goes, 55% of the water is still going to flood the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
Likewise wiht the Sydney water and health advice, have concerns over Sydney's drinking water.
Every point here could virtually be the only reason to NOT raise the Dam wall, yet you insist on Ignoring multiple, justified and important reasons.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains my whole life. I have adventured in the areas that will be effected, I have seen, camped and touched these wild places and there is nothing like it anywhere else on this planet. It is unique, wild, messy, beautiful, scary, peaceful, grounding and sacred. Sacred to the people who live in and around the Blue Mountains but to the Traditional Owners, to the tourists, to the flora, fauna and to those who will never make it here, but who still know of it.
Such short sightedness displayed by the people involved and the NSW Government. Shame on you quite frankly. You can't see past the short term effects.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to put on record my objections to the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam, and in particular with respect to inadequacies of the revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I am writing as a concerned citizen, as an experienced bushwalker who has visited many of the areas which will suffer periodic inundation should this project proceed, and as a person who lives in a flood prone area that receives next to no funding from the State or Federal Governments for flood alleviation works.
I oppose the raising of the Dam Wall for the following reasons:
1. Raising of the Dam Wall will inundate further world heritage areas of the Blue Mountains, including the pristine Kowmung River area. The temporary inundation as has been noted by experts elsewhere will have a deleterious effect on the native fauna and on the river systems. This has not been adequately addressed in the EIS.
2. The EIS takes no account of historical and aboriginal sites which will be adversely affected by this scheme, and I note that the cultural heritage assessment has been repeatedly criticised by the Australian Department of Environment as inappropriately assessing the cultural heeritage of the Gundungurra people.
3. The raising of the Dam Wall will only minimise inundation of the flood plain below the Dam in limited circumstances. In particular it will have no effect on flows from the Nepean River, flows from the Grose River, and flows from the Colo river. As such it will be of minimal benefit to downstream communities in times of flood.
4. As we have seen with the rain events this year, and has been reported elsewhere, raising of the Dam Wall would not have prevented flooding in downstream communities. At best it would only have had the effect of delaying the flood peak.
5. The concerns of the traditional owners of the area have been disregarded, particularly with respect to the many cultural sites that have been identified. It is simply a disgrace to ignore the concerns of the traditional owners in this day and age, and to do so simply continues a tradition of ignoring native land rights.
6. A a resident of an area that floods regularly, I know that irrespective of how high you build a dam, or how high you construct a levee bank, sooner or later the dam wall and levee banks will overtop, and cause devastation. This happened in Lismore and Murwillumbah this year. There is no decrease in the risk to properties from flooding. The only sure way to prevent flooding is not to develop housing on the flood plain. I note that the Insurance Council of Australia has raised the same concern, and stated very strongly that flood plains should not be developed upon.
7. The cost of raising the dam wall is exorbitant. The EIS has not assessed alternative schemes which may well be more cost effective, including the buyback of properties most at risk.
8. The funding is another example of State Governments which appear to be prepared to only spend funding on Sydney. As we have seen this year, Murwiilumbah, Lismore, Ballina, Woodburn, Forbes, Eugowra, Molong and many other towns have suffered from severe floods. Spending such a major amount of money on one locality only, is a waste of Government funding and would represent an unconscionable mis-use of limited resources. I contend that this project should be shelved until an assessment of the needs of the entire State, not just Sydney, is undertaken.
9. The EIS downplays the probable destruction of the Kowmung and lower Coxs river catchments, and the effect on faulna and flora originally used to justify the inclusion of these areas as worthy of World Heritage status. As the project provides limited risk minimization to flood prone properties, but major risks to ecological communites, I would suggest that this project is unreasonable, and should not proceed.
11. The project if it did proceed would only encourage further development on floodprone land. As such this is of no benefit to anyone other than property developers. It is certainly of no benefit to the tourism industry, to the water storage needs of Sydney, or to the ecological needs of the city of Sydney or the State of NSW.
12. Finally, I would point out that approximately 2500 submissions were submitted from concerned community members, government agencies, and local experts. The concerns of these submissions were not addressed in the latest EIS, and as such both the previous and current EIS remain severely flawed documents.
I thank you for the opportunity to advise my concerns, and trust that these will be adequately reviewed and addresseed, and not ignored.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am completely against raising the dam wall and ruining NSW's last wild river, the Kowmung. It neglects to protect the Blue Mountains National Park and benefits mainly developers who wish to build in flood prone areas.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising Warragamba Dam wall is a crime against nature and our heritage. Our truly natural areas are diminishing and it is not just our native flora and fauna that will suffer. Destroy our natural world and humanity will suffer too.
The threatened area is one of our country's gems. How, in all conscience, can anyone with integrity ignore a World Heritage listing? The unique and rich Cumberland Plains and Blue Mountains have more than enough pressure on them now without an act of ill-considered vandalism such as drowning its rivers and creeks and surrounding land, not to mention the significant Aboriginal heritage.
In practical terms, too, there are flaws in the plan. Almost half of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. Other options need to be assessed. There is far too much to lose!
The people of NSW have spoken before on this disaster in the making. How loudly do we need to shout?
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Do not raise the Warragamba dam wall. There is no end to encroachment on what remains of the natural world to suit the wishes of human inhabitants. By so doing you ignore the needs and the right to existance of the native flora and fauna that have evolved to live in this extraordinary landscape over millenia. Not to speak of the Aboriginal heritage from thousands of years of habitation.
We are both capable and responsible enough to manage our own lives without further destruction of the environment. This especially applies to housing, be it existing or future construction, the government has the capability and responsibility to ensure safe housing and construction outside of flood affected areas, and to assist and compensate those who are already there.
Recent events in NSW have clearly demonstrated the futility of attempting to 'hold back the waters' as flooding events are predicated to continue increasing well into the future.
As a resident of the Blue Mountains with a deep attachement to the values of the natural world I request you divert your considerable time, energy and funding into developing alternatives to this destructive proposal.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The revised EIS 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.
Stop Warragamba Dam Wall being raised!
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned that the planned raising of Warragamba Dam wall will have little impact on protecting the people below the wall. It can not be allowed to encourage development on a floodplain area when even raising the wall will have little impact in stopping flooding. If the dam is full and there is mass rainfall there would be devestation of those properties below the wall. There is no engineering modelling that can demonstrate no flooding. Other measures to ameliorate flooding can be implemented now such as lowering water levels in anticipation of rain event. Levies around vulnerable communities can be built now and these can start now rather than having a 10 year lag before any wall raising is done.
Why ruin a pristine environment when only hope is offered to prevent flooding with dam raising. There are plenty of other places to build houses, so it's not necessary to open a floodplain up for short term gain when the evidence is there right now showing the cost of building on the floodplain. Northern NSW floods show the high cost of building on a flood plain. Rebuilding, relocating. It's not worth the risk. Like gambling on the poker machines. The punters are the losers.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strenuously oppose raising the wall of Warragamba Dam. I do this on the basis that raising the dam wall will lead to inundation and degradation, some permanently, of many aspects of the of Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area.
I note the release of the 'Preferred Infrastructure Report' (effectively a revised environmental impact statement – “revised EIS”) and its attendant document 'Response to Submissions'. This continues to appear to be yet another a mechanism to support a decision already made by the current NSW government to proceed with the dam raising. My view on this is compounded by the outrageous move by the NSW government of declaring the project Critical State Significant Infrastructure, thus avoiding many of the checks and balances as well as broader scrutiny expected of a project of this nature.
The wilderness areas that are threatened by the proposal can never be re-created. The proposed use of off-sets can never maintain the originality of the affected areas, plants and animals.
The revised EIS and accompanying documents seem to ignore the opinions of expert persons, organisations and government instrumentalities.
I do not accept the statement that the intention of the project is not to facilitate development in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. I also believe that other measures could be undertaken on a more cost-beneficial basis and without the incumbent environmental disasters to reduce the risk to life and property in already developed areas. I also believe that the proposal does nothing to counter or deal with the 45% or so of floodwaters that come from 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.
What I fail to understand is that, with 95.7% of submissions to the 2021 EIS being opposed to the proposal and 2.3% supporting, why is the government continuing to push this outlandish proposal? Despite words to the contrary, it seems fairly obvious to me that the intention of the project is to facilitate development in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
I urge the NSW government to cease their pursuit of the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern, I have great concern that to accept the further plan to raise the dam wall at Warragamba will mean that nothing has been learned from the serous flooding experienced all over Australia in these past months.Like Little Red Riding Hood, the people will be fooled by the protestations of the wolves that somehow having a higher dam wall will protect them from the awful flooding that comes with it. Having more water behind the wall will not stop the flooding, as the water will find its way into the rivers from many other sources too. Rather than raise the dam height, we should be lowering the amount of water stored behind the wall to a level that will not risk the livelihoods & lives of people along the flood way of the Hawkesbury. We have a very nice desalinator which has not paid for itself yet. It could be brought on line in case of severe water shortages. Raising the dam wall has many consequences to it that are undesirable - losing World Heritage Status of Blue Mtns National Park, destruction of sacred and heritage sites, inundation of wildlife areas and the wildlife living in them. All unnecesary if the dam height is lowered instead. Try the simple before the hard and see if it works. The cost is nothing compared to building the dam wall higher. Yours sincerely, P C Gossell

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
There should be no more loss of of natural environment forest, wild life or disrepect of the first nations concerns of the loss of this important part of NSW.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I object to the heightening of the Warragamba dam wall.
I am extremely concerned by the effects of upstream inundation, which would endanger countless plant and animal species, destroy Sydney’s last wild river - the mighty Kowmung - and risk the Blue Mountains World Heritage listed area.
Ignoring the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park, is a ludicrous proposal. In the face of Climate Change these areas are more vital to our survival, and survival of species than ever before, no to mention the possible impact on First Nations sites of significance.
Please take heed to the public responses to this drastic proposal.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I object most strongly to the state governments biased advocacy for raising the Warragambe Dam wall against the clearly demonstrated public interest not to do so.

I abhor that World hHeritage values will be diminished and the Regent Honeyeater wiill be further endangered. If your government is so intent in advocating for the interest of developers I will convince at least 5 other people to vote you out at the state elections due to your anti-democratic actions in declaring so called state infrastructure needs above world heritage values, including indigenous sites to be destroyed
Yours sincerely,