Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern, we strongly believe that any alteration in Warragamba's Dam wall is unjustifiable on environmental and economic grounds.

I've only recently relocated to Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains.
The work I do is analytical and I'm also affiliated with environmental law at Sydney University.
I've been working on environmental issues for some time, and once again confronted with another problematic idea for a major project: this presented by the state governmentand its agencies as a solution to floods in the developed areas along major river systems.
The approach of both the present coalition government and the NSW liberal government to climate change is causing great concern generally in NSW. This concern is connected to the State Government's project of raising the Warragambe dam wall given its relation to over development, population and environmental destruction.
Working on legislative dicuments has indicated the serious problems and limitations of not only the EIS involved in the Warragamba project but in particular tits relation to the long-standing damaging affects of the NSW government's 2016 Biodiversity Act.
All the legislation dealing with the Warragamba project is connected to the failure of present thinking to understand the complex issues which are involved in this issue of raising the dam wall– the problems connected with flooding are, as usual, analysed as a 'natural'result, not as the result of unsuitable development and planning laws in a natural flood plain area–the original owners, the Gundungurra underrstand that there is a need to have regard for the importance of narural flood plain events and more than ever protecting the natural environment and its biodiversity.
Importantly there has been a great deal of work done on the relation of the geological affects of dams to dangerous seismic activity.The nineteenth century obsession with development (human well-being the primary drive, an important and complex issue in relation to climate change), does not take into account current scientific work – old thinking is dangerous and has been shown to result in anthropogenic activity which has created vast floods and fires which have not only affected Australia but globally.
The seriousness of understaning the scientific work which develops the structures involved in what is called 'climate change' has to be taken into account in the way every new project is developed–it's unbelievable that more development in western flood plains could even be considered –

I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for 20 years; I hold a deep appreciation for our natural environment and respect for our First Nations cultural heritage.
I'm opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall due to the destruction it will cause to a World Heritage area and to important cultural sites. I'm extremely disturbed to read it's estimated that 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, 5700 hectares of National Parks and over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam project. It's inconceivable that anyone holding a leadership role in this country could think that this is ok, especially in the light of where we have found ourselves environmentally today.
It is absolutely imperative that the Australian Department of Environment consult, listen to and take advice from Gundungurra community members. Australia is home to one of the oldest living cultures in the world with a recognised history of sustainable land management and too many significant cultural sites are not being respected and preserved for current and future generation.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that there are a range of sensible and more cost effective alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall.

As a resident of the Blue Mountains for some 22 years, like many other people in this community, I feel privileged to live in the midst of a unique and beautiful World Heritage listed part of Australia. However, over-development and poorly-thought out projects, such as the raising of the Warragamba dam wall, pose many unnecessary threats to the area.
After much research into the subject, I believe that the evidence is overwhelming.
Firstly, raising the Warragamba dam wall, and consequently raising the water level, would inevitably degrade the physical and biological features of the rivers and creeks upstream from the dam.
It seems certain that some local species of flora and fauna would be endangered, including already threatened species.
The possible loss of World Heritage status for the Blue Mountains National Park would also have a negative impact on tourism and the economy of the local community
I am alarmed to find that the EIS into this project has many systemic failures:
During the summer of 2019/20 we Blue Mountains residents lived through bushfires that devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Yet apparently, no post-bushfire field surveys of the Burragorang valley have been undertaken since then.
Threatened species surveys have been inadequate or incomplete.
This is even though 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 Kowmung River, located in the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment and running for 80 kilometres mostly within Kanangra-Boyd National Park and the Blue Mountains National Park, was declared in 2005 to be:
"sufficiently hydrologically natural to be declared a wild river. The biological condition of the river is very good; the results of an analysis of invertebrates in the river were consistent with results from some of the most pristine waterways in the region. The river is predicted
habitat for the Macquarie perch, a threatened fish".
Ref: KOWMUNG RIVER
KANANGRA-BOYD NATIONAL PARK
Wild River Assessment
Parks and Wildlife Division
Department of Environment and Conservation
June 2005
Only 27% of the potential impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report has come under severe criticism from 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.
In fact, over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites could be inundated by the dam raising. This explains why the Gundungarra traditional owners have not given their free and informed consent for the dam project to proceed.
The following supports this view:
“Numerous Indigenous cultural heritage sites, belonging to the Gundungurra people of the southern Blue Mountains, are also located within national parks that would be inundated by the dam wall raising. Delicate cave art, rare eucalypt scar trees, dreaming waterholes and marker sites are amongst the cultural heritage sites that would be submerged by a raised dam wall. An Aboriginal Place application was submitted to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage by traditional owners earlier this year in a further attempt to protect their cultural sites from the proposal”. Source: Letter to NSW Premier signed by over 20 prominent scientists, park managers and former environment ministers, 10 October 2018
It seems that alternative options for preventing flood damage were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
Most remarkably, on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. It seems obvious that raising the dam will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
An alternative is to severly restrict any further housing developments on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain area, and other options are available to protect the existing floodplain communities.

My wife and I moved to the blue mountains in order to be among some of the most remarkable rainforest in Australia and, if the UN is to be believed, the world. As former inner city renters we are not insenstive to the problems facing Sydney in terms of housing availability and cost and recognise that at first glance the western Sydney flood plains represent attractive development options and flood management is required in order for this to occur.
That said I think raising Warragamba Dam is a critical mistake, Australian bushland is already massively threatened by land clearing and climate change. Damming is incredibly destructive to the surrounding ecosystem as indicated by your own government's compensation figures.
A decision like this cannot be reversed and even if a large amount of money is spent attempting to repair and extend forest elsewhere such an effort would be a project a centuries and of little use to species who's habitat is threatened by the proposal. Not to mention the erasure of indigenous heritage sites which cannot be replaced, something that we as a nation have a rather dark history around.
The plan has been critisied by the governments own scientists, I urge you to reconsider and explore alternative options. In an increasingly unstable and uncertain future preserving our precious bushland and cultural heritage is quite literally the least we can do. Further destruction is a poor legacy to leave behind.

I objected to raising the dam wall for environmental reasons.

My concerns include:
Expert advice says that it will not prevent flooding of houses on the plain.
The extreme damage caused by flooding of a very important area for vegetation, fauna, and land important to First Nations people, will have a devastating impact above the dam, if it is raised even a small amount, let alone by many metres.
It is a serious waste of resources to spend, with shocking results for a problem that could be rectified in much better ways.

There may be no need to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall if what I believe was the original plan of using "Penrith Lakes" is followed, i.e. to use the lake areas to collect the Nepean River overflow.
In the EIS "Existing Regional Environment 2.5 2019/20 Bushfires, pp.14" it says more than 81% of the World Heritage Listed Greater Blue Mountains area was affected.
How can it be allowed to contemplate now partly destroying a World Heritage Listing that has only 19% left untouched?

I have live in our wonderful Blue Mountains for over 30 years and am very concerned about the environmental and cultural impacts of raising warragamba dam wall. If the wall is raised, 4,700 hectares of World Heritage national park, 1,800 hectares of Wilderness Areas and 65km of wilderness rivers will be forever scarred from sedimentation, erosion and the invasion of exotic plants, including:
• Kowmung River – a protected ‘Wild River’
• Eucalyptus species of Outstanding Universal Value under World Heritage listing
• Threatened Ecological Communities
• Habitat for Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population
Both Hawkesbury and Penrith Councils’ are opposing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Surely the possible and likely costs and risks far outweigh any considered benefits.

I am a resident of the Blue Mountains. I am opposed to the raising of the dam wall because I believe preservation of Aboriginal sites and endangered species should take priority over development.

I am against the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.
It makes no sense. If it is about safety to the flood plains, then why are you still realeasing land?
It is criminal to destroy more of our national parks and indigenous land.
Stop releasing land on the flood plains, protect what we already have.

I am writing to object to the Warragamba Dam Raising Project.
I understand this means an estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers would be inundated by the project which is a travesty. To put some perspective on this, 65 kilometres is the equivalent distance from Penrith to Mt Victoria, the furthest village at the top of the Blue Mountains, so it is a vast watercourse that would be permanently altered. In total 5,700 hectares of National Parks will be submerged by water with 1,300 hectares of that within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. As a resident of the Blue Mountains I am appalled that this natural environment can be altered especially when climate change calls for us to preserve our bush.
Simply put, the NSW Government's proposal to alter these wild rivers including the Kowmung River is ecological vandalism. It ignores our State's declaration to preserve a World Heritage Area. It also flies in the face of the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974 which declared the Kowmung River a "Wild River" because of its pristine condition.
I am also opposed to the proposal as it will impact key species such as the Camden White Gum which is listed by World Heritage for outstanding universal value, as well as Grassy Box Woodland. It would also reduce habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.

Alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall to protect existing floodplain communities have not been comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
Also the EIS surveys about threatened species do not meet guideline requirements and expert reports about impact on species were not obtained.

Surely a comprehensive post-bushfire field survey needs to undertaken to assess the Blue Mountains Heritage Area as a whole following the devastating habitat losses of 2019/2020 due to the severe fires in the region. As detailed surveys have not been carried out here are big gaps in our knowledge about the impact on many species.
By raising the dam wall Australia is in clear breach of its commitment to honouring and upholding the Blue Mountains which was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind.
Not to mention that the NSW devastating fires two years ago have made this area, our home, even more valuable and worth preserving.

I object to the proposal to convert the Waragamba Dam to function as flood mitigation infrastructure. Development down stream should be strategically located to avoid flood risk and further downstream impacts.
Please invest instead in policy measures to ensure development is located safely and sustainably with sufficient flood evacuation routes. Tens of thousands of hectares of land is already rezoned in growth areas across Western Sydney, and high density development is yet to be realised in many strategic centres free from flood impacts.
The cost of this proposal far outweighs the short-term benefits.

I don't think raising the dam wall is the right solution. Much of the flood water comes from from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. Aboriginal heritage sites would be lost if the water level was raised. I had a family connection to the Burragung valley, as did my late husband.
I think that no more housing should be built on the flood plain, and mitigation work below the dam should be undertaken to prevent flood disasters in the Nepean valley.
What would happen to the areas below if the increased water storage is full and we have another wet year like this year with a La Nina event?

Background
My name is Caley Bawden. I grew up in the Blue Mountains and while I now live in Sydney, I still consider the Blue Mountains to be my home. I feel privileged to have had the opportunity to grow up on the edge of a national park, and lucky that I get to continue to experience my favourite wild places because of their proximity to Sydney.
The Blue Mountains is a place full of beauty, biodiversity, history, and cultural significance. It is treasured by countless Australians and international guests. It is an ancient place which has long been cared for and treasured by the first peoples, the Darug and Gundungurra.
The Blue Mountains National Park and surrounds were decimated by the Black Summer fires. 81 percent of the greater world heritage area was fully or partly burnt and over 122 million mammals, birds and reptiles were impacted. The sense of loss that I and many others felt was deep, and still remains.
I am very concerned by the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba dam. Raising the wall will constitute further destruction of this unique and valuable place. Once we have lost it, we cannot get it back.
What we will lose
Raising the dam wall will decimate 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers. The Kowmung river is one of few pristine rivers in Sydney’s surrounds.
Inundating 5700 hectares of national park will destroy threatened ecological communities. It will extinguish unique species of eucalypts and other flora, that are found nowhere else in the world. It will reduce habitat for critically endangered species, where so much habitat has already been lost.
We will also lose at least 1541 identified aboriginal cultural heritage sites. Ancient places, we will never able to get back.
I have been lucky to experience these beautiful places. Raising the wall will deny future generations the same privilege.
Issues with the EIS
The process of assessing the proposal’s environmental impact has been inadequate and significantly flawed.
Deficiencies include:
• A failure to adequately engage with Gundungurra traditional owners
• A failure to undertake post-bushfire surveys, effectively ignoring the impact of the fires on the area
• A failure to survey the full impact area for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, assessing only 27% of the area
• Completing an insufficient number of threatened species surveys, less than the guidelines, and a failure to obtain enough expert evidence
• A failure to provide modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of raising the wall in the EIS
In all, the EIS is inadequate and deficient. It cannot be relied upon in making a decision to proceed with this project.
Proposed benefits and alternatives
The stated purpose for raising the dam wall is to reduce flood risks to residents of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
However, there is significant doubt that raising the wall will have this effect, including because on average 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
What is not in doubt is the environmental destruction that will occur if the wall is raised.
There are other alternatives for the protection of residents that have not been adequately considered, including lowering the dam, improving evacuation routes, and buying back houses in flood-prone areas. These properties should not have been built on a floodplain in the first place.
Conclusion

I urge the government to reconsider its proposal to raise the dam wall. Please listen to the voices of the people that love this place, including traditional owners. Please consider alternate options to protect downstream communities. Please protect the wilderness that we have left, so future generations can enjoy it.
Thank you for your consideration.

I am writing to express my opposition to the raising of the Warragamba dam. The assessment indicates that the damage to Aboriginal cultural sites, flora and fauna will be devastating. I have been visiting the Blue Mountains for many years and know that our community has a strong connection to the natural beauty of the area. I urge the Department to reconsider its decision in relation to raise Warragamba dam and consult further with traditional owners.

> I have to object most vehemently against the proposal to raise the
> height of the dam wall at Warragamba Dam. This would result in the
> wanton destruction of irreplaceable National Heritage areas,
> wilderness which we have already lost so much in recent years to land
> clearances and bushfires.
>
> Raising the dam wall is the lazy option as a solution to Sydney's
> water supply going into the future and there are other alternatives
> which will not destroy our precious wilderness.