Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I live and work in the Blue Mountains and have connections to the Aboriginal community and environmental networks.
Community concerns such as the impacts on Aboriginal cultural sites and ongoing cultural identify and practice need to be at the forefront of considerations. This is how we practically restore dignity and justice for Aboriginal people in their custodianship. Welcome to Country's, so integral to any event now, are not just words. Country has to be protected and the traditional custodians need to be participants in decisions that directly impact Country and ongoing cultural practices.
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
As a regular bushwalker in the Blue Mountains, I would like to inform you that I oppose the decision to raise the dam wall.
• The revised EIS 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 revised EIS has announced the 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.
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,
I totally disagree with the raising of the dam wall.
My reasons for this are;
Raising the dam wall will not save the Hawkesbury area from flooding as the are numerous rivers which spill onto the floodplain
The area above the dam is a world heritage listed area and is important to indigenous Australians because of their heritage
What do you do with even more water when the dam is full? It will still be released onto the flood plain
I have no personal connection to either raising the dam wall or the impacted flood plains
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am an aboriginal woman
building the dam casused so much catastrophic disaster of our land our water supplies up and down stream
the ebb and flow was disrupted we need both for less flooding etc
countless species of animals and plants died as a result building the dam we demonstrated but we never heard
why do you build these dams
there was plenty of running water for everyone
we lost our stories of our people
I am sick of governments doing bad things for money then after they really stuff up then they ask for our help

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I do not agree with the idea of raising the dam wall and believe that it will have devastating affects if it were to go ahead.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am all for the raising of the dam wall. The sooner the better!!!!
Yours sincerely,

Please do not raise the dam wall. The environmental effects of the expanded water storage are too serious, and the release of more land downstream for property development will only put more people in danger when the super dooper flood eventually comes .
Please also do not change the boundaries of the Blue mts national park. As tourists who visit the area regularly, we come to see untouched bush, not expanded dams.
Thankyou for the opportunity to make this submissiion.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I believe it to be a very unsound decision to raise the wall of the Warragamba am in order to build on the flood plain.
Firstly it disrespects the local Indigenous Gundungurra people, for whom this part of thge Nepean River has held cultural and spiritual significance for many thousands of years. Many sacred sites and sacred water holes would be destroyed forever.
The lives of all citizens, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, would forever be impoverished spiritually and culturally.
We would also lose forever the flora and fauna indigenous to that area. Australia leads most countries in the OECD in destroying the greatest number of native species of flora and fauna. This has to stop before it is too late.
Short term financial gain for developers and the government is not the answer to the issues facing the government: water supply and affordable housing supply.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I am appalled to see the lack of regard for cultural heritage, biodiversity and critical fauna and flora in the revised proposal for raising the Warragamba dam wall.
Like the original EIS, this new report severely downplays 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 Listing itself.

Please do not bow to pressure of developers, now is not the time for short term decisions. The latest State of the Climate report underlines the urgency of protecting biodiversity.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall is NOT in the best interests of the people who live in the Liverpool plains or the rest of the population. There are much safer alternative options. 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.
This proposal is a short sighted "quick fix" that won't actually fix anything, it will just destroy vital wilderness areas, which we can't afford to loose.
Regards

To whom it may concern,
This is nothing but a sham. All that will happen, is developers will make an incredibly amount of money off of the flood plain if the damn wall is raised.
Then, as natural disasters are becoming more common and intense, there will likely be a major flooding event which will surpass the higher constructed dam and devastate the area.
Not to mention the destruction higher levels of water will cause in the world heritage site.
The fact that the NSW government is putting this through as critical infrastructure is all the more worrying that it is being rushed through, not focusing on proper consultation and absolutely screams corruption.
The dam wall should not be raised.
The governments own advisory panel have urged them to reconsider - isn't that enough grounds for not continuing?
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to let you know that I do not support the raising of the Warragamba Dam.

Whilst I understand the need to protect property in Western Sydney from further flooding in the future, I believe that preserving and protecting the Kowmung River, unique & diverse eucalyptus species and countless threatened ecological communities within the Blue Mountain World Heritage area is more important.

At some point, the Australian government needs to decide to prioritise environment protection over economic "security" and endless property development. Once these areas of the Blue Mountains are flooded the damage will be irreversible. If you have ever travelled to the Blue Mountains World Heritage area, you will know just how special this area is and how important it is to protect it.
Yours sincerely,

Fri 2/12/2022 @ 9:28 PM
To whom it may concern,
European colonists, including myself and my antecedents, have spent 230 years chipping away (quite literally at times) at our shared natural heritage, so when it comes to a debate about raising the wall of Warragamba Dam, there are many reasons to be circumspect.
Would we want to be party to clearfelling much of the remaining untouched vegetation in the catchment and removing hundreds of square km of habitat for a whole range of rare and threatened species?
And would we want to raise the sword of Damocles over communities downstream by raising the wall and condemning many additional people downstream to certain death by making their escape impossible?
There have to be better answers than 'more hydro' and 'better flood control'. We have collectively contrived to destroy ancient primeval forests and to condemn animal and bird species to extinction in the search for water security ad flood control, and we must surely have the imagination and the resources to offer a better option than 'raise the wall and cross your fingers!'
Yours sincerely,

Fri 25/11/2022 @ 1:38 PM
To whom it may concern,
I recall knowing in advance of China's plan to build the Three Gorges Dam at the confluence of the Yangtse and two of its tributaries.
I also recall my decision to visit the Yangtse BEFORE the construction began.
And I bitterly recall the fact that, even after all of these years, I have never been there to see the desecration wrought by the massive structure.
A raised Warragamba would pose most of the dangers of the Three Gorges Dam in that people, environment and wildlife upstream would be driven out of their habitat and people downstream would live with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for a long as they live; and those are two pre-eminent reasons to abandon the project before it becomes a reality.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The proposal to raise the wall should be rejected. The environmental impact is too severe, as the governments own environmental impact statement findings have demonstrated.
This proposal is financially motivated to develop the lower floodplains that are not suitable for development.

Raising the dam wall will not protect these areas from flooding.
The areas that will be inundated as a result of the proposal are fragile and critical habitat.
This government should stick to its promises to not proceed with this proposal.

I passionately oppose the proposal.
Yours sincerely,

Fri 25/11/2022 @ 2:03 PM
The NSW Government has released a revised Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for raising the Warragamba Dam wall and is asking the public to make submissions on the proposal before 12 December 2022 The revised EIS is known as a Preferred Infrastructure Report (PIR) and was required to address the inadequacies of the original EIS. However, the new report has all but dismissed the 2,500 submissions opposing the dam project, siding instead with the interests of western Sydney’s floodplain developers to proceed with the project. It’s now more crucial than ever to make a submission opposing this project using our online submission guide and form. Like the original EIS, this new report severely downplays 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 Listing itself. Take this opportunity to make sure your voice is heard using our online submission guide and form. By declaring the project Critical State Significant Infrastructure, the NSW Government is doing everything it can to ensure the dam wall raising is approved and ignore the chorus of community opposition. The NSW Government has even announced they will ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and change the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park. Let’s not forget who this tax-payer funded scheme will ultimately benefit: property developers, who stand to profit off the further development of western Sydney floodplain. Follow our online submission guide to continue the fight against raising the Warragamba Dam wall. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,


Fri 25/11/2022 @ 1:53 PM
To whom it may concern,
I put forward a submission concerning to the following The revised EIS Environment Impact Statement 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 revised EIS 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. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I'm disappointed that you have dismissed the concerns of traditional owners and haven't paid attention to the alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall.
You have instead indiscriminately, again, put profits for developers above the reasonable needs of the local population.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to oppose the revised EIS in relation to the raising of the Dam Walland strongly oppose the raising of the Dam Wall for the following reasons.
I do not believe in any of the reports released that alternative solutions have been adequately investigated.
Living in Wollondilly we have been repeatedly ignored in relation to historical land sites, flora and fauna conservation and should this proposal go ahead there is significant impact on flora and fauna that can never be replaced.
The views and concerns of our traditional owners have been ignored and wil result in loss of culturally significant sites in an area that has seen devestation over centuries for our local people.
I believe the money could be better spent on improving infrastructure to other areas allowing people to travel easier and further rather than focusing purely on building more houses in western Sydney at the expense of evrybody else.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Before there is any further consideration of raising ANY Dam Wall perhaps a closer inspection and remedial work be done to alleviate flooding in the affected western Sydney basin.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I accept the Department's submissions disclaimer and declaration
I have not made a reportable political donation in the past two years.
I oppose the Warragamba Dam wall raising, it's been demonstrated time and time again how this will NOT solve any of the issues with floods in the flood plains, and it would caus irreparable damage to the environment and historical sites of the Blue Mountains.

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.
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.
Regards,

To whom it may concern,
It is the height of absurdity to have Warragamba Dam being both the major source of Sydney's water storage and also the place of release of water in major rain events to reduce flooding on the Hawkesbury-Nepean River system.
The area known as Greater Sydney has a history of swings from flood to drought. The occasions of drought potentially impact far more people than do the occasions of flood and yet the government deems it fit to drain off water captured in rain provision times only to excacerbate the need for water in times of drought.
We have an abundant source of water off the coast of Sydney which can be desalinated to supply drinking and washing water needs of Sydney. Israel has designed more economical desalination plants than the existing desalination plant.
Given the government's lame policy of overpopulation on the Cumberland Plain, the future demand for a viable supply of water will be even more critical than now. Fiddling with the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall is not solving Sydney's long term need.
Try hard to think constructively. It will be hard for you but it is better than failing as you are presently set for.
It is galling to see stupidity prevailing with the proposal to raise the dam wall when it does not resolve Sydney's long term needs. Further desalination plants will be the future of Sydney so why not spend the money on that now instead of wasting it on raising the dam wall and embarrassing Australia though mismanagement of a World Heritage Listed area.
Yours sincerely,