Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in relation to the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam - project number SSI-8441.
As an avid bush walker, I love nothing more than heading to the beautiful wilderness that is the Blue Mountains and getting to appreciate the flora and fauna that reside here.
I am extremely concerned about the impact that raising the dam wall would have on this special place. The majority of the national park and heritage area are still recovering from the 2019/2020 bushfires which caused huge loss of habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife. This project would further inundate 65km of rivers, 5700 hectares of National Parks and 1300 hectares of the World Heritage Area and reduce habitat even further.
There are also many cultural heritage sites within the affected areas which are hugely significant to the Dharug, Gundungurra, Wanaruah, Wiradjuri, Darkingjung and Tharawal people. Raising the dam wall and inundating these sites would be an act of cultural vandalism and a backwards step in Australia's reconcilliation with its First Nations People.
Undermining the legislative protections afforded to World Heritage Areas and National Parks would be an extremely dangerous precedent to set.
There are many alternatives to raising the dam wall, and I would urge you consider these options.
Yours sincerely,
Natalie Hardbattle

Dear Sir/Madam,
I a writing as a regular bushwalker in the Blue Mountains and NSW taxpayer and I strongly object to the proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall.
I have read the EIS and as a scientist, I believe it to be of poor quality and not thorough enough for such a significant project with no cost benefit to the majority of the residents of Western Sydney being stated in the EIS. The photos in the EIS of recent floods downstream are misleading, as are claims that a plantation of Camden white gums would behave like those to be flooded by raising the dam wall. One cannot compare these two groups of individual trees, so many of the variables are different and claiming that they will only be flooded for 2 weeks is an erroneous estimate. Additionally, stating that offset habitat will protect the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater is fantasy. These birds know what habitat is essential to their survival and they are inhabiting it now, it will be flooded by raising the dam wall which means they will have reduced habitat. When an already threatened species is impacted negatively, it does not have the numbers to be resilient like other species and there is a real threat of extinction here. Guideline requirements for threatened species assessments have not been met and this proposal should not advance until they are. Surveys post the 2019/20 bushfires need to be completed before proper assessment of impacts of raising the dam wall can be properly and fully determined.
This part of the Blue Mountains upstream of Warragamba Dam has been classified as World Heritage by UNESCO and the impacts on this area by raising the Warragamba dam wall will seriously breach Australia's obligations under World Heritage Convention. This is serious because 65 km of wilderness rivers and 5,700 ha of national park, including 1,300 ha of Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area will be inundated by raising the dam wall. The EIS estimates flooding upstream as temporary, and probably only lasting 2 weeks. All you have to do is look at the current flood scars upstream of the dam and you"ll see that vegetation does not survive repeated flooding, even if it is for only a few weeks, which is not the case for many high dam levels. There are so many variables that will affect dam levels and the EIS is simplistic and inaccurate in its modelling and projections.
Aboriginal assessments and impacts of flooding post raising the dam wall have been poor and do not satisfy local First Nations people such as the Gundungurra traditional owners. Furthermore the traditional owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the dam wall raising project to proceed. Over 1541 cultural heritage sites would be flooded by raising the dam wall. Denying First Nations people access to their culturally significant sites has been proven to damage and destroy culture and wellbeing in communities. This proposal to raise Warragamba dam wall in its current form is disrespectful and disempowering to our indigenous communities in western Sydney and the Blue Mountains.
Finally, there are other, less destructive actions NSW could be taking to protect existing floodplain communities in western Sydney. Alternative options have not been comprehensively assessed by the EIS. Around 45% of western Sydney floodwaters in question come from areas outside the Warragamba dam catchment so raising the dam wall will never be able to lessen impacts from these floods in the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain. A multifaceted approach is what is necessary and this should be adopted ASAP.
I hope that this proposal will be seen as too expensive to the population of NSW, with little benefit to western Sydney and obvious destruction of much valued and irreplaceable iconic vegetation and land on which threatened species and our First Nations communities depend.
Yours sincerely,
Fiona Tate

To whom it may concern,
I am appalled to hear of the destruction to this world heariatege area. Raising the dam wall will flood vast areas of wilderness. As an out door enthusiast I cannot support this, please consider alternatives.
Yours sincerely,
Tim Clare

To whom it may concern,
I wish to oppose the Warragamba Dam wall raising in the strongest possible terms.
I was the "Blue Mountains proudest day"when the Greater Blue Mountains area was inscribed into the World Heritage Register by UNESCO which were the words I used at the ceremony at Govetts Leap, as the Mayor of the City of Blue Mountains. I retired from council duties in 2008 but am still the longest serving mayor of this city.
The political proponents of this absurd plan know full well that our world heritage status will be endangered if this proposal proceeds.
I have over a very long period of time seen and experienced flooding in the Hawkesbury area, and I know that "none of this flooding" was ever caused by the warragamba dam overflowing.
I have known many people over the years, particularly elected people, that supported the raising of the dam wall and everyone of them was opposed to the world heritage listing, mainly for ignorant reasons.
This proposal is a clear breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Conventions.
Yours sincerely,
Jim Angel

To whom it may concern,
I am totally opposed to this project. 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 wildernerness provides habitat for key endangered species, including the regent honeyeater and Sydney's last emu population.
And most significantly:
• 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.
How can this go ahread against the express wishes of the Gunungurra traditional owners? It is outrageous.
I am a bushwalker and naturalist, just wanting to preserve what precious little natual wilderness remains in the Sydney basin.
I see the plan to flood this wilderness as an extreme act of environmenatl vandalism.
I look to cooler wiser heads within the government, such as Matt Kean, to prevent this occurring.

Yours sincerely,
Josie McSkimming

I wish to strongly protest against the plan to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam. I have a particular interest in the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater as I have been monitoring the population of the bird in the New England area of NSW. I have previously watched several pairs of the species breeding in the area between Armidale and Barraba. Conditions this year (2021) are ideal for the species to breed, but I was unable to find a single bird on a recent visit. There was a recent report of a breeding attempt, but I found that this had failed. The Warragamba Dam area is known to still provide breeding habitat which is used by Regent Honeyeaters. It would be tragic if this World Heritage site was sacrificed for raising a dam for which other solutions to potential problems can be found without impacting upon the survival of this iconic species.
Richard Jordan, 07 October 2012

The attachment shows why I strongly object to this project going ahead.
In summary;
It does not benefit anyone apart from literally a no that can be counted on your hands of very rich and powerful people like developers.. Why do it if flooding still occurs from other catchments onto the Nepean and Hawkesbury flood plain and the claim is that non more development will occur (which I do not belive as this can be the only reason for it) people already in harms way are there illegally and why pay around $1.7 billion for so few. They took risks and acted illegally why reward that. Jusr remive them. Once done approx $500 in todays has already been spent on mitigation for those left as planned in the mid 1990's, this has already been fought and that was the outcome. If my theory is correct around 100,000 people are predicted to placed in harms way and some WILL DIE when the big flood arrives which it WILL.

Unique, increasingly very valuable values upstream, and down stream will be irrevecibly lost. Upstream on the first flood event. Downstream resulting in slow death of the river ecosystems and what is left of the Cumberland Plain (very little). Increased pollution, flash floods, heat on hot days and loss of green space which has proven benefitcial value to the local, Sydney and NSW populations.

This will not benfit Sydney, even if development of the flood plain occurs. On that scale it is insignificant and Sydneys economic is hardly affected if it does not go ahead. It may benefit overall re amenity and tourist dollars notlost and gained as a result of not going ahead.

A loss of livlihood eg oyster farmers down stream.

Destruction of World Heritage values. Vandalism.

If this project goes ahead it will be a travesty. A total indictment on our generation and will be rightly harshly jusdged by future generations and is very very stupid, dangerous to benefit a tiny number of individuals many of whom have no interest in the well being of the communities of western Sydney, Blue Mountains, Sydney, NSW< Australia and the World as it is World Heritage that is affected and Indiginous.

DO NOT RAISE THE DAM WALL.

To whom it may concern,
I am very fortunate to have lived in the Blue Mountains for the last seven years and during that time have spent an enormous amount of time bush walking and exploring the is beautiful and extraordinary world heritage area.
I believe that raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Inundation of vast areas of the world heritage area will cause incalculable damage.
Furthermore the traditional owners have not given prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal to proceed.
There are many alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing flood plain communities. I understand a combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
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,
Monica Hayes

I believe that development and growth need to be done in a sustainable manner. The proposed plan benefits the development and growth of the Western plains at the cost of the environment. This proposed plan creates the potential to destroy a significant area of the Blue Mountains National Park including protected wildlife species and important Indigenous heritage sites. We need to protect species from extinction, protect biodiversity and cultural history to ensure that these area’s are there for future generations to enjoy and to learn from. No offsets are able to justify destruction. Building in the flood plain should be reconsidered.

The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is a magnificent world class National Park - inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. I have visited this pristine wonder and thankful for its existence.

Which is why I am utterly dismayed and deeply concerned when Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for raising the Warragamba Dam wall was released. It is - what can only be described as an attempt to justify destroying the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to satisfy Sydney's floodplain developers.

Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. I understand that 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, and 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam project. How is destroying such irreplaceable natural and cultural treasures for the sake of a few developers even considered? The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been heavily 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. Again the failure to address the human rights of our indigenous communities.

So I ask again why is this threat (Dam Raising project) even considered, when to my understanding there are alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities and a combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
And these alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS - any assessment of alternatives did not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
There are reports saying on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. I take 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.

I wholeheartedly oppose this environmentally and cultural damaging project. It is short-sighted, only serving a few that will have a devastating effect on our heritage for decades to come. There is a fundamental systematic failure of the EIS:
1. The assessment was undertaken by a questionable engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who have an stablished history abusing Indigenous rights, recently being barred from the world bank.
2. The 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.
The integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed based on the above points. Surely if any right minded decision maker cannot accept this assessment as a basis for further decision-making then it shouldn't be accepted by the Minister for Planning.

I was horrified to hear about a very rushed and incorrect decision being made. I object in the strongest possible terms to the Warragamba Dam being raised. Going ahead with this will damage and destroy habitat of the Regent Honeyeaters.
It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
Whoever came up with this idea has obviously not had any discussions with local environmental groups or they would have known about the risks to the Regent Honeyeaters.
Thank you, Jess Brown, Ferntree Gully, Vic - another beautiful place under threat

To whom it may concern,
I am extremely concerned that the NSW government wants raise the wall of Warragamba Dam that would result in irretrievable damage to a very special place - the Blue Mountains World Heritage area. So special it's been given world heritage protection. So how can we even be considering destroying both natural and cultural values. These are more important than houses. We need Regent Honeyeaters, platypus, koalas and emus - not only now, but for future generations. The First Nations people, the Gundungurra, need their sites of cultural significance and they must be protected especially when so much cultural heritage has already been lost or impacted by poor development decisions. Here in the mountains we're still feeling the impact of the 2019/20 bushfires and we can't afford to lose more flora and fauna. I implore you to stop this ill-fated and illogical project. Find another way - build flood evacuation roads, lower the full supply level of the dam, build elsewhere. I love where I live and it's great that millions of people a year come to the Blue Mountains to enjoy what is here - now. The beauty and tranquility, the wildlife and the magnificent bush. Please protect it; don't destroy it. Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
Leanne Spencer

Wilderness areas are being destroyed around the world. Once gone, they will be almost impossible to replace. As a wealthy country, with large areas of wilderness per resident, Australia will find it easier than most to preserve these important places. Areas close to Sydney are particularly valuable because they are accessible to more people and offset the air pollution produced by urban areas.
The wilderness that will be lost underwater if the dam wall is raised falls into this category. It is beautiful, important and irreplaceable. The Environmental Impact Statement is inadequate regarding threatened species and aboriginal heritage sites. It needs to be reviewed in the light of the recent bushfires and worsening climate change.
No substantial arguments have been made to justify the expense and destructive effects of raising the dam wall. Democratic governments should be advancing the interests of the great mass of citizens, not short-term profits for well-connected property developers.
My interest is as an ordinary person who's been visiting the Blue Mountains and surrounds for over fifty years, bushwalking and touring. Our forebears had the good sense to protect these areas. Let's not be the generation that's remembered for destroying them.
Thank you.

My name is Steven Lang and I live in South East Queensland but for many years I lived in the Blue Mountains and have done extensive walking in the Kowmung Creek area. The region is especially important to me on a personal level, but my objections to the proposal to raise the dam wall have a serious scientific focus.
I strongly oppose the project due to its 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 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.
I also 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.
I strongly encourage you to reject the proposal,
Yours sincerely, Steven Lang

This area is part of a World Heritage listed area of significance . If the wall is raised it will flood many First Nations sites. This wall will not stop flooding on the plains as other rivers run into this area. I see that this is just a way for the Liberal Government to put more houses on the flood plain and gain money for developers. I am very opposed to this raising of the dam wall as are most of the population that understand the awful consequences. The government could be sued by First Nations for destroying sacred sites. These areas need protection not destruction.

As a resident of the Blue Mountains, I am acutely aware of how precious its World Heritage listed natural landscape is.

There are few wild rivers left in NSW, and they are very important to our environment. Raising the dam wall would cause horrific flooding damage to the Kowmung, Coxs and Nattai rivers. The area is also important to the survival of endangered species such as the swift parrot and regent honeyeater, which stand to lose food and breeding hollows.

I understand there is also a number of significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites within the prospective area of inundation, which would be destroyed.

For these reasons and more, I am strongly opposed to the expansion of Warragamba Dam.

The supposed goal of protection from flooding can be achieved without raising the dam wall. Measures such as dam level control, improving evacuation routes, not approving high density housing on floodplains (or even buying back residential areas within the floodplain) should all be fully exercised instead.

Please, do not deface our World Heritage National Parks any further than they have already been. Do not raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

I am the coordinator of a Friends group which volunteers on a weekly basis at our local conservation reserve. I have seen first hand the fragmentation of our bushland, the impacts of a drying climate and a decline in our bird species.
Australia is currently facing the challenges of climate change, extinction of our native species due to a diverse range of human induced factors, and land degradation. We cannot continue to operate in the future as we have in the past, primarily for the sake of our children and grandchildren, that is, for future generations.
Raising the level of the Warragamba Dam is an outdated response that takes no account of the environmental impacts of such a decision and will in the long run lead to further environmental degradation. This will be to the detriment of the people of New South Wales and of all Australians.
The short term impact will see the degradation of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and the extinction of some threatened species. To give an example, the Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with very few individuals remaining in the wild. Our Federal Government and the New South Wales government have invested considerable resources into the recovery plan for this elusive bird. During the assessment project it was discovered that there were 21 Regent Honeyeaters, which included active nests, recorded in the impact area.
To proceed with this project in light of the above would be both unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater, that is, for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I oppose any suggestion of offsets as a response to the enormous loss of the Regent Honeyeaters’ breeding habitat if this project was approved. It is a rare and endangered species because of its specific needs; it is unlikely any offset could meet that need.
The Regent Honeyeater is one species for which a National Recovery Plan has been developed. Will this Recovery Plan be adhered to rather than set aside as has happened to other recovery plans in the past, and how many more undetected, unnamed and unknown species will be lost if the dam wall is raised?

It is unbelievable that National Park, World Heritage, Aboriginal sites of significance and the habitat of rare and endangered species could possibly be put at risk by so senseless a proposal. The flooding of these areas if the wall is raised betrays every assurance and promise of good environmental management ever made by State governments and also betrays those people in the past that have made real compromises to achieve just, permanent outcomes which will be trashed by this proposal. The proper approach to dealing with flooding on a floodplain (many parts of the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment) is to plan properly, identify risks, ameliorate them through in situ engineering and above all, prevent urban development in active flood zones. I emphatically oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.