Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to the rasing of the dam wall.
As a resident of the Blue Mountains for over 30 years I don't believe that the destruction of our World Heritage Area is justified by a dam expansion which will wipe out crtitical habitat and damage important cultural sites.
The Preferred Infrastructure Report which is being used to justify this expansion does not adquately address concerns of the community or Traditional Owners.
The report also dismisses viable alteranatives to raising the dam wall and concerns about its impact on drinkling water quality.
Increased development on the floodplain following the wall raising will impact on scarce remaining native habitat in Western Sydney. It will also increase the number of people exposed to flooding as the raised wall will not protect from future large scale flood events.
I urge you tomproperly consider the science and concerns of the community, Traditional Owners by not proceeding with this project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
PIR Submission
The PIR and the EIS are inadequate. They do not provide a compelling justification for the proposed raising of the dam wall. They do not prevent downstream flooding. The PIR ignores the concerns raised by the Traditional Owners; this is unacceptable. The assessment of impacts on threatened species is inadequate. Concerns raised about the impacts on the quality of drinking water are not addressed properly. The PIR is cavalier in addressing concerns about the impacts on the World Heritage Listing.
The proposal will not achieve its stated aim of preventing flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.
The proposed raising of the dam wall will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean valley, as around half of the floodwaters come from areas other than the Warragamba River. The Government should focus on protecting existing floodplain communities by examining alternative options. A combined approach of multiple options is the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation. As neither the EIS nor the PIR assesses alternative options, they are deficient in justifying the project.
The PIR, like the EIS, ignores the Traditional Owners’ concerns.
The report again disregards the concerns of Traditional Owners by not including important information about sacred sites that would be impacted by the proposal. The proposal will inundate more than 1500 identified cultural heritage sites. This is unacceptable.
Both the Commonwealth Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have criticized the proposal for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
The Government should treat the Traditional Owners with more respect and be mindful of the public outcry following the destruction of the Juukan Gorge.
The PIR ignores concerns raised in earlier consultation
The PIR has not addressed concerns raised in earlier submissions made by the public and by government agencies. Of particular concern is the report’s dismissal of concerns raised by the Department of Health and Sydney Water about the impacts on drinking water quality.
Equally disturbing is the announcement of the 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. Such unilateral action risks endangering the World Heritage Listing, which provides a major attraction for tourists from around Australia and overseas and results in the creation of many jobs for people in the area.
For the Government to be prepared to risk losing the world heritage listing sends a strong signal that it cares little for the NSW tourist industry, for the people employed in it, for Australia’s international treaty obligations and for the NSW environment.
The consideration of the proposed impacts on World Heritage and National Parks is inadequate.
The proposal will flood around 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, of which 1,300 hectares lies in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The proposal will flood:
• Several 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;
• Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing, such as the Camden White Gum; and
• The Kowmung River which has been declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
Such significant destruction deserves to be fully investigated and assessed. The report does neither.


Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
The 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. Plus, the serious concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the report.
The report has announced NSW Government’s intention to change the boundaries of the Blue Mountains National Park World Heritage Area and ignore the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee.
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.
For these reasons I am opposed to the raising of the dam wall.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam.
It is wrong on many levels to flood World Heritage habitat, destroying irreplaceable ecosystems and indigenous sites.
National parks are supposed to be protected for their natural values in perpetuity.
We need more areas protected; not to degrade the ones we are lucky enough to have inherited.
Specifically, the raising of the dam wall would further threaten the already critically endangered regent honeyeater.
There should be no more development in flood-prone areas. Future weather events will likely inundate them anyway, with even more catastrophic results.
I have walked in the Blue Mountains and I urge the government to reject the report which ignores the legitimate concerns of community and indigenous groups.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
This is a submission OPPOSING the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam Wall. I believe the damage that would be caused to the environment, including flora and fauna , would be extreme , and no worthwhile benefit would be achieved. I resided in the Blue Mountains area for nearly 30 years and have a full appreciation of the outstanding natural beauty and significance of the place. It must be protected in its entirety.
I wish to present the following points.
1. The Preferred Infrastructure Report does not adequately address the large number of submissions already presented that oppose the proposal. Some expert submissions were completely ignored, and the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee was likewise ignored.
2. The inevitable destruction of World Heritage, and National Parks areas has been made to seem irrevelant. The callous statement " people before plants " indicates a total lack of understanding of our dependence on the ecological vitality of the environment.
3. Concerns of relevent authorities about the possible effects on drinking water quality, both during and after construction have also been ignored.
4. Concerns of Traditional Owners are dismissed. Huge numbers of sacred sites would be lost.
5. Viable, cost effective alternatives to the project have not been adequately addressed.
6. The fact that 45% of floodwaters enter the Nepean/Hawkesbury system downstream of the dam is ignored. Floods will occur even if the wall is raised and the expected overdevelopment on the flood plains would result in even more damage.
7. It is obvious that the real purpose of the proposal is to pander to the interests of property developers who are dictating terms to the Coalition Government to satisfy their greed.

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.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in response to the PIR and in opposition of the raising of the Warragamba Dam walls.
I am a scientist with a wide interest in several of the contentious aspescts of this proposal including ecology and water management.
My opposition to this proposal is outlined in the following points.
• 1) The PIR dismisses the water quality concerns of Sydney Water as well as the heath concerns of Health NSW. These are valid concerns.
• 2) The proposal fails to provide adequate flood mitigation or any consideration of alternative flood mitigation options. No alternative options were assessed in the EIS. Why not? Raising the walls has been identified is an inadequate form of mitigation, given the hydrology of the area (one would assume consideration of this to be fundamental in the development of a flood mitigation plan). Almost half the flooding occurs outside of the catchment and downstream of the dam.
• 3) The loss of habitat for many species, some of which are critically endagered such as the regent honeyeater. Such losses are egregiously unacceptable.
Raising the walls jeopordises the water supply of millions, ensures the destruction of countless plants and animals and promises flood mitigation it simply cannot deliver. Is there any commensurate reward for such extreme risk and destruction ?
The community concerns that this proposal will simply benefit property developers by allowing the government to dowgrade the flood risk classification of select zones of western sydney, appear valid and the only clear motivation for the proposal. This is deeply disappointing.
I implore the deparment to consider flood mitigation alternatives that are less destructive, more effective and informed, rahter than dismissive of expert opinion and community wishes.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall.
The raising of the dam wall will not stop flooding down stream - a position supported by the Insurance Council of Australia meaning the NSW Government is deliberately opening up land down stream to development they know the owners will not be able to insure. The rainsing of the dam wall will create innundation of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area and the desecration of over 1541 culturaly significant Aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
The current dam sits on two significant fault lines and raising of the dam wall would increase the likiehood that the additional weight of water will cause the fault line to slip and cause catestrophic disturbance to the river.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern
The Mulgoa Valley Landcare Group strongly objects to the raising of the Warragamba dam wall. We made a considered and lengthy submission to the original EIS. The time taken to understand the reports and prepare our comments was wasted. We did not receive a response to our comments nor does this new report address the concerns that we expressed.
It is our belief that this new 'process' will also be a simple box ticking exercise from a government that will proceed with this inappropriate development regardless of the input received from the community.
This begs the question as to 'why'. The community of NSW has identified very valid concerns which are being ignored by the NSW Government. There is only one answer as to why this development is being pushed through depsite a variety of heritage and environmemtal impacts that cannot be mitgated. Those with vested interests to develop on the flood plain are ahead in the queue.
Please explain how you will protect and preseve irreplaceable indigenous heritage sites and artefacts.
Please explain how the impacts on the Regent Honeyeater and last Emu population in Sydney will be mitigated.Where will these birds go, how will they be redistributed and will that successfully prohibit their extiction (be it definitive or local). Or are we content with the brazen capitalistic approach from our Premier of 'people before birds'. Clearly our premier did not attend the ecology unit when he went to school.
The NSW Government has not retsricted construction on the flood plain. The NSW Government has not introduced flood evacuation roads of a safe elevation. The NSW Governmnet has failed to address most of the recommedations in the Floods inquiry but are instead chooisng to pursue this issue which experts believe will not address the impacts of flooding events on the Hawkesbury Nepean River. Instead of being the final tool in the box, the NSW Governmnet have made the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall the only tool in the box.
We oppose the raising of the Warragmba Dam Wall. We object to the sentiment of 'people before plants' which is a kindergarten level analysis of this issue.
We object to the construction impacts on the roads within the Mulgoa Valley. We object to the continued assault by this NSW Government on the liveability and amenity of residents in Western Sydney.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am against the raising of the dam wall for obvious reasons.
These affect all species including humans (sure there are still a few getting around in your building somewhere). The science states it will affect drinking water quality. 5700 hectares of National Parks forest will be destroyed. This is unacceptable for anyone giving a green light in whatever capacity, to this ridiculous project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the decision to raise Warragamba dam. This is a ludicrous plan to enable property developers to build on flood Plains west of Sydney. The devastation this will occur to the environment, and cultural heritage of over 200 hectares of World Heritage listed land is insumountable. What right do people have to line their pockets with gold at the expense of our native fauna and flora. The community deserves to hear the truth behind the wheeling and dealing that is going on behind closed doors.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I write representing the Cattai Hills Environment Network CHEN.
CHEN is opposed to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. Members of CHEN are environmentalists and bushwalkers who have a deep connection with nature. We live in north-west Sydney where recent flooding of the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley has impacted our area. We do not think that raising the dam wall will prevent future floods.
Concerns of 2,500 community and government agencies including healthy drinking water concerns from Sydney Water and Health NSW have been dismissed in the new report.
Traditional owners have again been ignored and 5,700 hectares of National Parks and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage area would be inundated were the dam wall to be raised.
Alternative multiple options to raising the dam wall have not been addressed in this EIS.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

After the Flooding of non-flood-prone Eugowra which has never flooded before and Lismore to a height never seen before I am beginning to wonder if the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall has a more Sinister Purpose than just collecting more water for retail sale, that in the case of Lismore and Eugowra was not released well before flood peak and was rather allowed to create a record Flood Peak that in the case of Warragamba would wipe out the Durrug King Yagon Yarramundi's Historic Town of Windsor (Which the Saxe Coburg Gothe Von Battenberg Family named their Castle After) which was a Medievil Village on the Hawkesbury Nepean River where the fresh water is much like the Burramatagal Parramatta where the fresh water is on the Parramatta River - Parramatta or Burramatta is a Civilisation that well pre-dates European Arrival as is indicated by the Dates on the Maori Graves in the Cemetary.

Up-Stream from Warragamba Dam the Colong Caves that contain several Wiradjuri Skeletons who have fallen to their Deaths yet to be dated will be permanently flooded as will be The Francis Barralier Pass into the Kowmung River Valley which was first used by French Explorer to cross to near Oberon - Barralier was followed by Irish Slave Thomas Boyd who was indentured to the Kennedy Family who could not find Barralier's Pass and got lost in what became known as Kanangra Walls in Kanangra Boyd National Park - the Seemingly misplaced Awabakal Yora Gadigal word "Kanangra" meaning "Meeting of two wise/white/men/women/elders or Ghosts" being given to Kanagra Walls as a Tracking Party had to be sent out from Sydney to Rescue Thomas Boyd who later went on in 1824 to blaze the trail from Collector to Djilong being the Hume Highway via Beechworth & Yakendandah to cut off the Mayan Chinese living with the Wiradjuri in Wagga who arrived at Djilong (now Geelong Victoria) with Pasha Zheng He in 1421 when the Mongolian Chinese Admiral Circumnavigated and Mapped both Australia and New Zealand.

"Kanangra" is also the name given to the Agreement between Barrangaroo's Wangal Consort Binalong and Governor Arthur Philip on the 17th of September 1790 ten days after Arthur Philip's Unconditional Surrender and Pay-Back Spearing on Collins Flat Beach.

Arthur Philip travelled to Beacon Hill & Narraweena reportedly looking for farmland but was not prepared to get into conflict with Warringah's Peoples' on "Kurringai" = "Koori Owned" land under Kanangra Agreement rather Arthur Philip created a Bonfire Signalling "Beacon" near Mills Place to draw attention of ships as they needed supplies.

When the Durrug River People of Patonga that John Pilger speaks about were approached and Kanangra wasn't in their Lexicon their farmland and Fishing Grounds along the Hawkesbury and adjoining Nepean Rivers either side of Windsor became fair game and was Stolen by the New Colony with the Duruk or Durrug People marooned at Duruk or Blacktown where they became dependent on the Colony of New South Wales for food and Durrug men Emery and Cogy showed Archibald Bell the walking track past Mt Tomah to Lithgow where The New South Wales Colonists immediately got into conflict with the Wirajuri at Mt Lambie (TARANA) when the British tried to steal all of the Yams not realising that some Yams or Sweet Potato's had to be kept until next season for replanting.

This raising of Warragamba Dam rather than flood-proofing lowlands that are already prone to global Ocean Level Rise from Glacial Collapse like that which occurred of 2.1M 8200 years ago will be used as a loaded weapon by Miscreant NSW Governments or their Israeli Sydney Water Subcontractor TaKaDu
https://www.australianjewishnews.com/israel-and-nsw-sign-water-deal/
https://www.vivawarringah.com

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am against the dam project because it is destructive to the World Heritage & National Parks and habitats for endangered species and the environment.
Also, there is no justification for destroying the precious Aboriginal Cultural sacred sites.
I urge you to consider the numerous alternative options rather than raising the Dam wall. When there is a will, there is a way.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I grew up in the Blue Mountains and my family now resides in the Hawkesbury. I do not want to see the Blue Mountains World Heritage National Park be subjected to catastrophic harm.
The wild Kowmung River supplies clean drinking water to Sydney but it will be destroyed if the government raise the Warragamba Dam wall by 14 metres. The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would suffer irreversible harm from the damage raising the dam wall will cause.
A new NSW government commissioned report has found, that the $1.6bn plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall would cause "unavoidable" and "irreversible harm” to sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage .
The project will result in cumulative harm to the intangible values of the cultural landscape through extension of previously unmitigated impact on cultural values from the construction of the Warragamba dam and flooding of the Burragorang valley and its tributary valleys,” the report stated.
The further flooding of the Burragorang valley will contribute to irreversible harm to the cultural and spiritual connection that Aboriginal people hold to this part of the country, their heritage and the cultural landscape and will obscure the tangible aspects of the creation stories associated with the Burragorang such as the Gurrangatch and Mirrigan story.
Advisers to the United Nations have expressed concerns about a plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall because of its likely impact on the Blue Mountains.
NSW Treasurer Matt Kean has previously labelled his government's plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall as unviable. Mr Kean speaking as the Environment Minister at a dinner in 2019, told guests he intended on being a 'robust' voice in standing up for the environment and in particular 'the Blue Mountains National Park when it comes to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall'. Whether you agree with (raising the dam wall) or you don't the reality is there are other ways that you can mitigate the potential for floods along that river,' Mr Kean said.
The Blue Mountains mayor, Mark Greenhill, said the Unesco decision should be read as a warning the world heritage listing would be at risk if the dam expansion went ahead.
The government’s push is decidedly political. Raising the dam will produce a visible (and thus electorally valuable) symbol of a government acting. But the level of the mitigation achieved will be less than could be won by tackling the problem at its roots.
It took less than a week for the NSW planning minister to agree to fast-track the controversial $2bn Warragamba Dam wall-raising project, despite his predecessor previously rejecting the application because of its impacts on world heritage-listed environment.
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall is ludicrous.
Let's keep our wild rivers wild and Save the Kowmung.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall because it will have many detrimental environmental effects including on the Kowmung River which has been declared a Wild River and has been protected for its pristine condition under the 1974 NPWS Act and it will inundate habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including Regent Honeyeaters and Sydney's last emu population.
It will also have detrimental cultural effects as over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
It will also have detrimental effects on Sydney's water quality.
The money that would be put into raising the wall should be put into alternative options that would protect existing flood plain communities.
I think this is a very flawed proposal that should be stopped now. We need to protect the World Heritage and National Park Areas for future generations
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose totally this destructive dam project. It will destroy World Heritage. It ignores and demeans the traditional owners of this land. It ignores community concerns. The whole idea is a total and destructive waste of money and other resources. There are many less expensive, environmentally sensitive and practical alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. Do not approve this ridiculous, destructive and expensive project.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the dam.The 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 concerns held by Sydney Water and Health NSW about the effects the dam project would have on Sydney's drinking water quality have been dismissed in the 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. 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 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'm appalled that little if any account has been taken of the submissions made to the earlier EIS arising from the proposed dam wall raising.
A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation that would protect existing floodplain communities. It appears that these options were not assessed in the EIS. Any assessment of alternatives must take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
Further, 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 stand with Wilderness Australia and urge those in charge to look after Warragamba Dam and its native plant and animal life by abandoning this project.
Yours sincerely,