Warragamba Dam Raising

There are so many reasons why this should not be done - we are in a climate and biodiversity emergency and this will badly impact both.
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.
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.

Do the right thing and stop this immediately.

My name is Laura and I currently live in Eltham, Victoria. I grew up in the Hunter Region, NSW and care about the plight of wildlife and birdlife in NSW and across Australia.

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.”

I'm sure you have been made aware that the Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered 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.

Please make a wise choice to stop this project, and then celebrate the achievement of potentially saving a critically endangered species.

I object to the raising of Warragamba Dam for the following reasons, which I hope you will take into serious consideration for the future of this country where your descendants will have a life in, most likely:
• alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities should be considered.
• I believe alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. This is essential before making a final decision.
• With 45% of floodwaters coming from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment, it won't make any difference how high you will build the wall. Flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream will still happen.

• Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given free and informed consent for the Dam proposal to proceed. Has the government of Australia not learnt anything yet after the decades of misuse of the land, poor management, unsustainable maintenance – not to mention the appalling treatment and disrespect of the traditional owners of Australia? Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.

• The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is a world class National Park and was inscribed on UNESCO’s prestigious World Heritage list in 2000, in recognition of the Blue Mountains Outstanding Universal value for the whole of mankind. After the world crippling events of these past 18 months, with no reprieve in the immediate future, could you not do your part in helping humanity and the world with some sort of protection and thought for those that come after us?

• Australia has obligations under the World Heritage Convention. As such our so called leaders should be doing everything in their power to prevent damage to our natural environment.

• We have been told that the engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history abusing Indigenous rights, even being barred from the world bank. I can understand why if they failed to provide a post-bushfire field survey after the catastrophic bushfires of the summer of 2019/20 which devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. And to their shame, only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. It gets worse. Threatened species surveys are nowhere near what the guidelines are. And it seems they did not get expert reports where field surveys were inadequately completed.

• It's inexcusable that no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising have been outlined in the EIS. It's as clear as day that there is little integrity in the environmental assessment and it should be rejected outright by the Minister for Planning.

I have had my property in the Blue Mtns for about 30 years now. For my part, with the help of my family, we've done things to the land to help produce rather than destroy. We've been able to share what we've grown with neighbours, family and friends. We've contributed in a positive way to the environment, by working hard, using no chemicals by the way. Why is it that at such a basic level, we can do MUCH, which benefits so many – but at government level, with all the resources you have, you seek to destroy, kill, burn and go backwards? You need to think that financial gain is not the only measure of success. When I hear talk of a Reset, this is what you should be considering – resetting values so that we can live WITH Nature rather than fight against it. It would achieve a far better outcome for everyone. Sadly, you will probably shake your head at this and throw my submission in the bin. That is your choice. We all have a choice.

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

I work with the environment everyday, trying to protect and enhance it on private property. It all feels like a waste of time when state government carrys on with projects like this. This and other environmental catastrophes like the Jesmond Bypass are really taking a toll on my mental health. Sometimes I spend hours of my own time attempting to demonstrate how a client can make their little back yard into a biodiversity haven, but then see those that have more power doing whatever they want, an any cost to the planet.

Please look at how this proposal will affect the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and stop it!

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.

Please get better at delivering whatever projects you need to do and stop the environment vandalism! There are better ways!

Sam Hardingham

Dear Sir/Madam,
I object on a number of reasons.
First and foremost the EIS that the wall raising is based on has been shown time and again to be systematically flawed. 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.

World Heritage and cultural sites under attack:
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.

Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall

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.
These are just some of the reasons that this unnecessary project should NOT go ahead.
It is time for all our governments to take environment seriously and treat these special areas in a special manner.

Tim Carroll

Dear Minister,

Our National Parks and World Heritage areas are protected for many important reasons. They preserve biodiversity, keep irreplaceable wilderness areas intact for everyone to appreciate, and safe-keep the cultural heritage of our First Nations peoples . So much of that heritage has been destroyed by over the last 200 years and cannot be returned – it is now our responsibility, as culturally and environmentally informed citizens and leaders, to preserve what we can.

The raising of the Warragamba Dam wall will erase 65 kilometres of pristine rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Park, of which a significant portion lies within the UNESCO World Heritage area. Within these areas are threatened and critically endangered plants and animals, including the Camden White Gum, Grassy Box Woodland, the Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last endemic Emu population. It is acknowledged that the number of threatened species surveys conducted for the EIS are under the guidelines, the firm tasked with the EIS assessment has been banned by the World Bank for misconduct, and only 27% of the region was assessed for its Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. This EIS is flawed and the details I have mentioned above will come to the attention of the broader public.

Please Minister do not stain your political record – follow your conscience and do what is right for the plants, animals, rivers, forests, First Nation's peoples and all future citizens of NSW.

Kind regards,
Scott Millington

I strongly oppose the proposal on the following grounds:
The potential impact on a World Heritage site and the associated loss of flora and fauna;
The negative impact on the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater, which could potentially lead to its extinction, a bird for which the highest level of protection should be afforded.
Thanking you for your consideration of my comments.

I strongly object to this project which will destroy Aboriginal sites, destroy part of a protected significant area.
The only reason for this is the State Government wants to assist their developers mates in gaining assets to build on what at present is flood plain. The people who have bought and built on the existing flood plain should have done their homework and not bought there. Yes harsh I know but there is a lot at stake here.
If this policy gets through then it will be political suicide for this current government. As just about everybody I know will never vote for them in the upcoming elections.

This project has continued to be mismanaged with misleading information, lack of information and now a poorly designed and incomplete EIS by an unacceptable firm with a poor record. The stated outcomes of this project i.e flood mitigation have never divulged the true aim i.e over development of the area.
My wife and I have bush walked in this World Heritage listed area since our teenage years in the 1970s. We were so proud of its World Heritage listing in 2000. It’s significant natural values were recognised globally and next to Australia’s largest city. We were so thrilled that this magnificent area would forever be protected. Who would have thought that in a short twenty years that these natural values would be discounted and ignored for even more development. There are alternatives that need to be taken seriously.
Of all the times in our history now is the time to protect our environment and if our politicians fail to properly value World Heritage areas where do we go? This expensive, damaging project is ill conceived and will forever add to our appallingly environmental record. It must be rejected.

I object to the proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall. I have spent a lot of time bushwalking and bike riding throughout the Blue Mountains National Park, in particular several overnight hikes along the Kowmung River, one of the only remaining wild rivers in New South Wales. It is an area rich in beauty and culture that should continue this way.
The proposed changes to the height of the dam wall will have untold impacts on the wildlife and natural environment upstream from the dam wall. This will severely compromise the UNESCO World Heritage listing of the Blue Mountains. It will also potentially damage several first nations sites of cultural significance and heritage.
The lack of engagement with the Gundungarra Traditional Owners furthers the continued dispossession and colonisation that has endured since invasion in 1788. Enough damage and destruction across NSW have been done to the lands, waters and skies of traditional owners.
Dams are a relic of 20th century modernity and shouldn't be used to solve 21st Century problems. The proposed downstream developments in flood prone lands is poor land use planning. The NSW government should not be seen to cater to the short-term economic benefits that may arise in these flood affected areas downstream. This myopic approach will benefit a few yet ruin the pristine natural environment for generations to come.
Alternative solutions to Sydney's water scarcity should be investigated. A combined approach that includes recycled water, better management of development in flood plains, improvements to other areas of the water system and water restrictions in times of plenty are just some potential alternative solutions that could be utilised to solve this complex and wicked problem.

About me
I am a semi-retired commercial lawyer and company director. I have lived all my life in Sydney, apart from a brief period working overseas. During that time I have been a frequent visitor to the Blue mountains for bushwalking and mountain biking.
I love the Australian bush and its unique flora and fauna. I also have a huge amount of respect for the traditional owners of this land, and they way they lived here sustainably for tens of thousands of years. And regret at the terrible treatment they and their cultural heritage have endured since the coming of the Europeans.
Relevant facts
In making a decision whether to approve the raising of the dam wall the Minister should have regard to the following.
The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) which undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project has a history of disregarding Indigenous rights, and has been barred by the World Bank from undertaking any work for them.
Their review was flawed and inadequate and could not form a valid basis for an informed decision by the Minister. For example:
- Despite the long occupation of the land by the Gundungurra people only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
- Despite massive wildfires during the summer of 2019/20 devastating 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area, no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
- the threatened species surveys were substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
The integrity of the environmental assessment is lacking, and it cannot be accepted as a basis for decision-making by the Minister.
Objections to proposal
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area was included 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 resulting damage to natural and cultural values through inundation would jeopardise that status and be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Park, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam wall raising project.
This is a disgraceful proposal, and is frankly unthinkable for anyone who cares for the natural environment, or respects Aboriginal cultural heritage.
In the path of unavoidable destruction are:
- the Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
- eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
- Threatened Ecological Communities, including Grassy Box Woodland;
- Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater (of which it is estimated only 350 remain - see further comment below) and Sydney’s last Emu population; and
- over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites.
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. Allowing damage within its boundaries is completely unacceptable and inconsistent with World Heritage management principles.
I am particularly disgusted by the proposed destruction of regent honey eater habitat. The offset proposals in the EIS lack credibility and should not be accepted.
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 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, which 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 and is incompatible with the National Recovery Plan, not to mention the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested in the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
The Minister should pay no regard to the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater. Offsets in any form are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and never 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 replicated or offset. Any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for either the local affected population or the species. The remaining habitat simply must be preserved.
A further, and fundamental, ground of my objection, is that the Gundungurra people, Traditional Owners of the area slated for inundation, have not given their Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed, contrary to the requirements of the UN Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been much 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. This cultural heritage must be preserved.
Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall
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.
In any event, on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment, so the Dam wall raising will not solve the flooding risk problem.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam because potential impacts on the environment include impacts to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and its threatened species. The World Heritage area is World Heritage because it is recognised internationally, globally, as of significance for biodiversity - it is not a local issue. In particular, I am deeply concerned that it would impact contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater - a bird that was once abundant and is now threatened. World Heritage areas should not become open to detrimental actions that “cannot be avoided or minimised.” Since the fires in 2019-20 this is even more important because modelling by Birdlife Australia suggests up to 50% of important foraging and breeding habitat was lost. The dam level being raised would simply increase this percentage. The impact area includes active nests so there is no doubt the impact would be detrimental.

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”. What is the point of having World Heritage listings or National Recovery Plans if they can be simply pushed aside?

Biodiversity is under threat from human expansion and values that, in the long run, are detrimental to humans themselves. It is the role of government to govern for the common good and that common good includes non-human lives and ecological webs of life that actually sustain humankind. Species diversity, ecosystem diversity and their associated evolutionary and ecological processes would be negatively impacted by raising dam levels. It is a system - it is all interconnected.Australia’s National Reserve System supports biodiversity conservation, aiming to ‘secure long-term protection for samples of all our diverse ecosystems and the plants and animals they support’. This includes birds such as the Regent Honeyeater.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute an opinion.

Sue Lovell

Dear Minister,
I and my family have for four generations been closely connected to the Blue Mountains, and to the unique bush-life and opportunities the area provides to Sydneysiders. The area is also a World Heritage site.
We strongly oppose this proposal. Below are facts the Minister should consider when making his decision on whether or not to raise the dam wall.
First, the Blue Mountains benefits all Australians, not just Sydney residents. It also brings in a great deal of tourist income.
Second, the Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park, since 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.
Third, the actual proposal is deeply flawed in the following ways:
1. The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project has an established history abusing Indigenous rights, recently being barred from the world bank.
2. Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
3. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
4. Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
5. No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
6. 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.

Finally, we note that 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.

Yours faithfully,
(Prof) A L Booth

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 a Critically Endangered species with fewer than 350 remaining in the wild. A handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and 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 and 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. 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.

Hi, I believe that the raising of the dam wall is a great mistake. If the wall is raised then when the dam fills to full capacity significant environmental land will be trashed. The dam already has a mega capacity to hold water. If we have a drought then we'll need more water with the growing population but there must be another way.

Dear Minister,

As an immigrant who has been proud to call this country home for nearly 36 years, I am still beyond belief why Australian governments at local and federal levels continue to plan infrastructure projects that create catastrophic consequences for Australia's unique environments. This is supposed to be a developed country, and the only development I can truly see is the developing of more properties, smaller and smaller lot sizes to squeeze even more profits into the pockets of the developer and governments in the form of taxes and duties. Little care is given to the incredible and unique Australian flora and fauna that resides within these areas that are earmarked for development. Jordan Springs, Ropes Crossing, Sydney's NW Corridor, all responsible for wiping out threatened animal and plant communities and much of the small remains of Cumberland Plain woodland, another amazing and unique ecological community with only about 6% of the original size of it remaining. This kind of ongoing madness must be stopped.

As a nature photographer for nearly 30 years, I proudly show my viewers the spectacular wildlife I regularly encounter in places like the Blue Mountains, which is - please allow me to remind you - a declared World Heritage. Again, little concern is being shown by the planning of this project for that world famous declaration, which will flood inconceivably large areas where currently unique plant and animal communities still thrive and breed, much like what they used to do in the west of Sydney, before habitats were wiped out to make more room for housing and other infrastructure development.
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. Other vulnerable species in this region include White-bellied Sea Eagle, Square-tailed Kite, Powerful Owl, Sooty Owl and Australian Masked Owl, Jacky Winter, Brown Treecreeper, Turquoise Parrot, Scarlet Robin and many more "insignificant" bird species that no one would even know or have heard of.
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.


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.

World Heritage and cultural sites under attack

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.

Why do government leaders continually thank the traditional custodians of the land prior to public speaking engagements, yet they disregard and thus totally disrespect the wishes of the indigenous elders and communities who should still have a say in matters, after all, white men took their land, enslaved them, treated them like dirt and now are disrespecting them even more by disregarding their opinions.

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.

Please reconsider this seeming act of environmental vandalism, as the world will laugh at Australia again, since we are one of the worst countries for protecting our natural heritage.

Please strive to be a positive leader for change for the better. Better is not always for the benefit of developing land for the masses and raking in the fruits of those developments by imposing the duties and taxes for the said developments. That is a very short-sighted view.

I have had the extraordinary pleasure of walking beside the wild Kowmung River on two occasions, and am therefore quite aware of the threat to that area from rising water behind a raised Warragamba Dam. In particular, I am aware of rare plant and bird species that rely on this country for their survival. And I have planted trees in the Wolgan Valley to attempt to provide a future food supply for the endangered Regent Honeyeater. What a waste if they are all wiped out!
These are all factors that need greater consideration than it appears they've received so far in relation to the maintenance of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
I have also considered claims by Gundungarra people that significant cultural sites which go back into antiquity would be inundated by the rising river. And I believe them in their assertion that as much as 70% of the area involving more than 1500 sites was never actually surveyed as was required under Heritage legislation.
As the intention behind the dam raising is to allow further development on the flood plains below Warragamba, where far too little concern has already been taken for residents' safety, I would have thought the highest priority was to increase that level of safety for existing residents. I have read of the dire absence of escape roads away from the Dyarubbin. And I have also read of a vital blockage point further down the river which, if removed, would allow the water flow - 45% of which originates BELOW the dam anyway - to move away from flood-prone areas faster.
I don't believe that alternatives to the simplistic solution of raising the dam wall have been adequately considered. And I fear this was one more project rushed through by Minister Ayers, like his notorious '10/50' legislation, intended to allow rural householders to clear bush from around their properties threatened by fires, but which was also seized upon by urban nymbies who saw a chance to avoid Council regulation and obtain an illicit view.

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 current EIS is a disgrace. Raising the dam wall will destroy a large portion of a declared wilderness zone, and it will not prevent flooding from a major storm. Scientific modelling has shown that you cannot stop flooding on the river.
But if it goes ahead and permits large-scale development on the floodplain, the developers will take the profits and run. There will, eventually, be a huge flood, people drowned and huge, catastrophic losses. It is very likely that floodplain insurance for any housing would be either unaffordable or just not available. The taxpayers will be left to clean up the mess and foot the (huge) bill.
This is a very bad idea, promoted solely to make a short-term profit for a few major developers.
Yours
Roger Caffin