Warragamba Dam Raising

I dont think its the right thing to do to raise the dam wall,i understand the reason why the dam was built in the first place and a lot of people had to move out of the valley.and now to raise the wall and destroy more indigenous artifacts,thats the wrong thing to do against the rightful owners of the land.

To whom it may concern,
I'm opposed to raising Warragamba Dam wall because I do not believe, after reading various environmental reports, and listening to communities impacted by floodwaters downstream, and listening to the Traditional Owners of the lands west of the dam, that the problem of flooding of the Hawkesbury/Nepean Valley downstream will be fixed. Why create further environmental destruction upstream, when the devastating flooding downstream is on average 45% caused by other river systems and waterflows into the Valley?
Think about the future, listen to First Nations voices, consider the Blue Mountains World Heritage Listing, listen to communities who have been campaigning for the fragile ecosystems raising the dam wall will destroy. The loss far outways the gains for developers who will build in flood-prone areas creating trauma and heartache for the communities impacted by ongoing flooding, no matter how high the dam wall rises.
It seems so possible to mitigate the impacts of the ever-increasing flooding events by choosing a multi-option, cost-effective flood risk approach, that considers all stakeholders, to resolve the issue.
I have great hope that the Liberal Government can act wisely to benefit all-comers who are experiencing the impacts of flooding downstream in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley and now, with the possibility of raising the Warragamba Dam wall, upstream in the pristine World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park.
Protect us all - hear us all!
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising the Warrigamba dam is completely unacceptable. Destroying unique bushland and aboriginal heritage to promote a shoddy government is not on. It will do nothing to stop flooding.
Keep the wall the the same height, get rid of nsw liberals.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Flood control requires mitigation.
Just making dam wall higher so people to build houses in flood zones is not the answer.
What about creeks and rivers that run into under the dam wall eg neapean river.
don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern, I am writing to state my opposition to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. 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. 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 and risk the Blue Mountains World Heritage Listing itself. Conversely, this tax-payer funded scheme will ultimately benefit property developers, who stand to profit off the further development of western Sydney floodplain. This is yet another example of the NSW Government placing the interests for property developers ahead of tax payers and the environment. Entirely unsurprising, but disturbing all the same.

To whom it may concern,

I oppose the Dam.
I understand we all need water, but there are very many ways we can achieve this in Australia - Every house having a water tank for one, springs to mind. You have not even considered the alternatives - how arrogant are you?
We have undertaken enough destruction of nature here in Australia and it it time to stop.
It is time to put nature first - without it we stop existing - that's how important it is - yet you don't seem to even care. YOU HAVE TO CARE

You can't get on you high horses and make statements like the one Dominic Perrottet made "the project would go ahead “by hell or high water” and that he would “put people before plants.”
It is just obscene !
The world needs to care NOW, and that includes NSW Government.
Conducting Environmental Impact Statements is always going to be controversial, however, if they were just conducted fairely and accurately most people would accept them - but they are not, including this report.
Based on the poor quality and lack of fairness of the report, it cannot be used to justify going ahead with the dam .

Kindest regards

To whom it may concern,
Submission Raising Warragamba Dam
I strongly object to public money being spent on the raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam for flood mitigation.
The Preferred Infrastructure Structure Report (PIR) has not taken the concerns of the community into account.
Aboriginal Cultural Assessment
The PIR does not address the concerns of the Traditional Owners who would lose country if the dam wall was raised. They would lose access to cultural sites and artefacts. Some sites would be damaged by the increased area flooded. Since Aboriginal people have already lost so much of their culture this is totally unacceptable. It is estimated that over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment has been criticised by experts from the International Council on Monuments and Sites because of inadequate consultation and assessment.
World Heritage would be lost
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list. It is recognised as a world class National Park. I object very strongly to the proposal to remove part of it for an infrastructure proposal which many people believe will not achieve the aims of preventing flooding of homes. If this project is approved then no Australian can feel confident that our natural assets will be protected in the future.
The raising of Warragamba dam wall would flood 1,300 hectares of the World Heritage Area. It has also been estimated that it would flood and therefore damage, 65 kilometres of wild rivers and 5,700 hectares of national park. There will be objections from around the world if this is allowed to happen.
The Kowmung River is a special place for me and my family. My parents and maternal grandmother walked along this ‘wild river’ in the 1930s. I have walked and camped along it with my husband, children and a dozen teenagers on many occasions. Young people need these natural wonderlands to build their confidence and learn to work together. Damage by flooding of such areas must not be allowed.
Biodiversity offsets
I strongly object to the use of biodiversity offsets because no matter what ‘offset’ is used, the result will be loss of the plants and animals which inhabit the area to be flooded. Even though flooding will be intermittent it will nevertheless alter these habitats. It is time the NSW Government protected all remaining biodiversity because too much as already been lost. I note that many submissions on the EIS also expressed concern about loss of species and habitats, as a result of the proposal to raise the dam wall. For example, Grassy Box Woodland cannot be created or offset. There is very little left in NSW. Planting some of the species from this ecological community is not acceptable as an offset.
An expert opinion supplied in submissions to the EIS states “The vegetation communities referred to collectively as the Grassy Box Woodlands on the middle and upper Wollondilly River valley, also known as the Burragorang area, are some of the most intact and extensive examples of Temperate Grassy Box Woodland ecosystems surviving in all south-eastern Australia.” It seems to me that such experts are being ignored.
I object to the proposal on the grounds that it would also cause the loss of the last population of emus in the Sydney region. The regent honeyeater is a nationally listed critically endangered species. The raising of the dam wall would cause the loss of critical breeding habitat for this honeyeater, pushing the species closer to extinction. It is a species that many people have worked hard to increase its population so to lose such a critical site would be shocking to many.
Alternatives to protect people living on the flood plain
Hydrologists have worked out that, averaged over floods since 1960, 45% of the water which floods the Hawkesbury Nepean valley comes from tributaries other than Warragamba. In 2017 Infrastructure NSW reported that 5,000 houses lie under the 1:100 year flood level and a further 7,000 lie under 1:500 year flood level. I support regulation of development on the floodplain which avoids putting more people in harms way and as in other countries, move people out of these flood zones. It appears to me that the costs of doing that would be considerably less than raising the dam wall.
Building safe evacuation routes would be needed and do not seem to be properly considered as safe alternatives.
Insurance to cover rebuilding after floods will not be available to people in these flood zones.
Rivers need to be treated with respect. The floodplain is part of the river and must be kept free of infrastructure to enable the river to spread. Restoring its natural vegetation would help to manage the water. Using some areas for growing food even though crops will be lost to floods would have social and economic benefits. Other parts of the floodplain could be used for recreation.
I favour a combination of the alternative means of managing floods instead of raising the wall of Warragamba Dam

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
i oppose the idea of Raising the wall of Warragambah Dam.
The Blue Mountains has been in my childhood and in my adult life as a place of nature, wildness and bushwalking experiences.
This idea to raise the wall of the dam will not stop areas of the catchment being flooded in the increasing "rain event" episodes we are witnessing as climate change impacts our world.
Around 45% of floodwaters come 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.
Do NOT ignore the advise of the UNESCO World Heritage Commitee.The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is iconic NSW nature that the world comes here to visit. It holds precious Aboriginal sites of significance and is important to presev=rve as sacred. ground. World Heritage Lisitng does NOT come easily to places. It is becasue of the value of the science, culture and ecology of the area that it has such a lsiting.
This report igmores the advice and submissions of 2,500 people and agencies who raised serious concerns about this idea in 2021. These concerns MUST be adressed and answered.
Traditional Indigenous Owners of country cannot be ignored again.
Even Sydney Water have concerns about this proposal, and its impacts on the quality of Sydney's drinking water.
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.
Do not dismiss nature as being less important than people. We are all dependent on a healthy ecosystem for our survival .
Sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The Proposed raising of the height of the Warragamba dam must not proceed.
It constitutes not only a flagrant waste of taxpayer money and Government overreach but also environmental vandalism of the highest order.
The proposal would result in the inundation of 5700 hectares of National Park including 1300 hectares of World Heritage with over 1500 identified indigenous cultural heritage sites and many threatened flora and fauna species as well as the destruction of the last wild river in NSW - the Kowmung.
And it is both unnecessary (a comprehensive package of alternatives has been proposed) and ineffective (almost half of the floodwaters do not originate from the Warragamba catchment).
As a lifelong bushwalker in the Blue Mountains area I first explored the Kowmung river in the 1980s and would be personally devastated by its destruction.

Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,
I will start by making it clear that I am totally opposed to raising the height of Warragamba Dam.

I am making this submission as an extremely active and concerned nature-lover and environmentalist. I have been interested in nature’s plants and animals since I was a child in the UK and since I moved to Australia in 1980 I have developed an intense interest and commitment to Australia’s fauna, flora and landscapes. I walk frequently in the bush and along the coast around Sydney and venture further afield when allowed. I visit the Blue Mountains 2-3 times per year, in fact I was walking in the area around Katoomba only two days ago. My wife and I are also strong financial and practical supporters of various environmental charities, including volunteering on Bush Heritage properties.

I am strongly opposed to the proposal to raise the height of Warragamba Dam for two principal reasons: it has completely unacceptable impacts on the precious environment, the flora and fauna and landscapes, of the Blue Mountains; and if that on its own is not bad enough, it is completely unnecessary. There are perfectly acceptable, better even, alternatives to achieve the desired outcome of protecting homes on floodplains.

The value of the environment and ecosystems of the Blue Mountains is recognised in NSW, in Australia and internationally. I very much hope that I do not need to detail to you the details of the recognition that the Blue Mountains has received.

Also, the land that will be destroyed by this proposal has immense cultural and heritage value to the traditional owners. This must be respected.

The lands that will be flooded by the raised dam contain many threatened species. I will highlight the Regent Honeyeater which is listed as Critically Endangered at state and federal level. There are probably fewer than 350 individual birds left in the wild - this is as a result of past destruction of their natural habitat and more recently bushfires. Clearly, in such a situation any further destruction of the Regent Honeyeater’s foraging and breeding habitats will push the species even closer to extinction. Yet, this is what will happen if the dam is raised - even the EIS recognises this. What is the point of listing species as Critically Endangered if governments approve schemes to make them even more endangered! This is ridiculous.

At the best of times, ‘offsetting' destruction of the environment is questionable but when it comes to species that have very special habitat requirements and have already lost most of their natural habitat, offsetting is nothing more than a sham. It is not possible to offset the destruction of the the habitat of Regent Honeyeaters.

More generally, it is not at all obvious that the government has seriously considered the objections raised to the EIS by NSW government agencies, by experts and by members of the community, or that the government has seriously considered the perfectly viable alternatives. What stands out in the government’s response to submissions, in the PIR and in statements made by the Premier and others is that the government is set on a course of action without any regard for the scientific evidence, the views of experts, the concerns of the community (including Aboriginal people) or Australia’s commitment to preserve World Heritage areas.

I very much hope that this proposal will be rejected and that the government see the wisdom of formulating a much more sensible, environmentally sustainable and culturally sensitive plan.

Many thanks for considering my submission.

To whom it may concern,
I am absolutely dismayed that the NSW government is pushing for the raising of Warragamba dam yet again. Not only will this destroy our natural and cultural heritage but it will not achieve the official goal of preventing flooding in the Nepean - Hawkesbury flood plain.
How many times must the community repeat its concerns?
Thank you for taking this submission into account.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the Warragamba Dam raising project.
Significant concerns have been raised by many reputable and reliable organisations, companies, stakeholders, government agencies, Indigenous groups and others.
Some points of specific concern to me are:
1) NSW Government's 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.
2) The serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality.
3) The destruction of 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.
4) Destruction of 1541 identified cultural heritage sites which would be inundated by the proposed dam.

There is no certainty that the proposal will prevent flooding downstream and there are alternative options that would protect existing floodplain communities.
I implore you to halt this project immediatly and consider alternative ways of managing this concern. As human and industry action continue to impact climate stability we must protect the living systems currently functioning within our state as priority. Any other action will prove to be irresponsible and ultimately harmful.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned about the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam Wall, and am opposed to it. I was born in Penrith and have lived for decades in the Blue Mountains and feel a personal connection with the Hawkesbury/Penrith/blue mountains areas, and am an avid Bushwalker. It is not only for personal reasons, but for the following factual reasons that I am opposed to it being raised.
The dam wall has already been raised and a spillway constructed to make the dam safe from any flood. What is proposed now would increase the dam's storage capacity by another 50% or enough storage to fill Sydney Harbour twice.
12 metre spillway causes the most damage
A higher spillway will hold all small and medium floods behind the dam wall for several weeks. The submerged vegetation will die, leaving a scarred landscape of silt and dead trees to be infested by weeds after the waters subside.
Famous Blue Mountains World Heritage listed wild rivers will be ruined. The denuded area shown below is revealed when water levels in the dam are low.
Raising the dam wall will push this tidemark of degradation many kilometres upstream into spectacular wilderness valleys.
Denuded Area (Kazan Brown)
Warragamba Dam already provides flood mitigation. With smarter use and no new storage capacity, floodwater could be better managed. Raising the dam wall ignores this potential and is a waster of $700 million.
A future government could easily use the raised dam wall to hold water permanently and increase Sydney water storage.
The Impact
Current Lake Surface Area - 7,300ha
New Lake Surface Area - 12,300ha
Wilderness Area Destroyed - 1,800ha
World Heritage Submerged - 1,000ha
National Parks Lost - 4,700ha
Adverse Impacts
• Fragments and degrades two World Heritage list wilderness national parks
• Degrades world famous scenery of the southern Blue Mountains
• Reduces rare biodiversity, including 40% of the Nationally threatened Camden White Gum forest
• Aboriginal cultural heritage destroyed – see detail below.
• Loss of classic bushwalking areas, historic campsites drowned and access restricted
• Further urban sprawl on the floodplain and degradation to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River.
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.
A better solution is to lower the full supply level for flood mitigation. This provides most of the benefits of the proposed dam wall raising and respects our international obligations to protect World Heritage.
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.
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 have been concerning failures of the EIS.
• 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.
For all these reasons I urge that the dam wall proposal which would actually mean building another wall, rather than raising the current wall, be dropped
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose to raising the Warragamba Dam wall due to the destruction that would be caused.
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.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The propsal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam has been shown to have no merit.
The EIS produced by the proponent has been shown to be fatally flawed.
The NSW government has not voted funds to carry out the project and none will be forthcoming from Canberra.
There is little chance that the project will be approved as it will damage a World Heritage Area.
The decision of the Perottet government to deem it critical infrastructure is just a political ploy designed to win some votes in the seat of Penrith in the 2023 state election.
This shameless attempt to dupe the voters of Penrith and the people of NSW deserves to be condemned and rejected.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed dam extension.
The latest report 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 report 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 concernss that have been raised by Sydney Water about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
The report has attempted to downplay the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks. An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project. This includes:
• The Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
• Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
• A number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
The report has again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners, not including important information about sacred sites that would be flooded.
Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
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. Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I absolutely oppose the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall on the grounds of the destruction to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, detrimental impacts to biodiversity and threatened species, detrimental impacts to Gundungurra cultural heritage sites, and the impact to the quality of Sydney's drinking water supply.
I also vehemently oppose the project on the basis of the corruption of process.
The EIS has failed to consider the better alternatives to mitigate the risk to life and property on the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain.
This project proposal is disgraceful and must not go ahead.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I urge the NSW government to not raise the Warragamba Dam Wall and consider alternative options that would protect existing floodplain communities. I oppose the Warragamba Dam raising for the following reasons:
1.The concerns raised in the 2,500 community, expert and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021 have not been addressed.
2.The report dismisses the impacts of the dam wall raising on Sydney's drinking water quality and concerns raised by Sydney Water and Health NSW.
3.The report minimises the destruction of World Heritage and National Parks. The dam project would inundate approx. 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks. Of this, 1300 hectares is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
This dam project would destroy
-the Kowmung River which is protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
- unique eucalyptus species diversity such as the Camden White Gum, all which have Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing
- Grassy Box Woodland which are threatened ecological communities
- Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
4.The NSW Government proposes to change the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area so that the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee can be ignored.
5.The report has also again disregarded the concerns of Traditional Owners. It does not include important information about 1541 identified cultural heritage sites that would be flooded by the Dam proposal.
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report does not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members. The report has been criticised a number of times by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
6.There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. Alternative options and their cost effectiveness and economic benefits were not assessed in the EIS. No matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream. On average, 45% of floodwaters come from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
The NSW government has the opportunity to meet its obligations under the World Heritage Convention and preserve the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area for future generations.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I live in the Kanimbla Valley in Lithgow City Council area, at the Coxs River. I visit the Blue Mountains around Katoomba and Kanangra regularly for bushwalking, including at the Kowmung River.

I strongly oppose raising the dam wall at Warragamba Dam for flood protection for several reasons:

The PIR all but dismisses most of the community and government agency submissions to the initial EIS in 2021. Serious concerns about the protection of the BM World Heritage Area as well as Sydney’s drinking water quality remain. 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 is not commensurate with protecting an area of outstanding world heritage value!

Instead of sacrificing protected natural heritage, legislation should be put in place to prevent further growth of human settlement in this (and other) existing flood plains. Because this is in the hands of legislators, I regard the justification for the proposal as flawed and insufficient. Conservation of natural heritage (highest protection status GBMWHA) for future generations must be worth more than developing a flood plain for short-term benefit.

The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park, in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its 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.

Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
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. Therefore, alternative approaches should be given more weight.

Yours sincerely,
- Thomas Wiedmann, Kanimbla, NSW 2790 -

I accept the Department's submissions disclaimer and declaration

I have not made a reportable political donation in the past two years.

To any party involved in making warragamba Wall decision
I write to oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for several reasons:
It will flood areas already designated as World Heritage. this is going back on our previous committments to preserve the area.
It will drown considerable numbers of histoirc Aboriginal sites.
It will have the consequence of allowing further building on the flood plains below the dam. This is a nonsense as climate change is forecast to bring ever larger storms, so sooner or later (but probably soioner) kthe new dam will over flow and flood the areas below.
Yours sincerely,