Warragamba Dam Raising

PREFERRED INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT AND SUBMISSIONS REPORT WARRAGAMBA DAM RAISING
COMMENTS ON DOCUMENTS
Introduction

Bushwalking NSW Incorporated is the peak body for bushwalkers in NSW and the ACT. It represents the interests of over 11,000 bushwalkers from 70 bushwalking clubs throughout NSW and the ACT, and provides a united voice to local, state and federal government agencies and other bodies on issues affecting bushwalkers.
We have previously reviewed the Environmental Impact Statement and had indicated our objection to the proposal. Having reviewed both of the above documents, there is no new information or analysis that would dissuade us from the view that the proposal is deeply flawed and Water NSW has failed to present a compelling argument to proceed with the raising of the dam wall.
Rather than comment on all of the issues that reflect poorly on the proposal, Bushwalking NSW focuses of the issue of public recreation and the impact of the proposal on bushwalking and related activities.
Social Impact on Public Recreation

On page 392 of the Submissions Report, it is stated that access to designated wilderness areas will be maintained and the Project will not restrict opportunities for solitude and appropriate self-reliant recreation.
BNSW Response
We flatly reject this conclusion. There will be impacts on rivers such as the Kowmung and Nattai and this will affect opportunities for remote area bushwalking and related activities.
On page 403 of the Submissions Report, it is stated that social impacts can be highly subjective and perceived impacts may differ……………compared to the reality.
BNSW Response
This seems a remarkably dismissive attitude to those who have raised objections in relation to social issues. We simply request that Water NSW adopts a more respectful attitude and takes the time to better understand why some like us would have a different perception on this proposal than Water NSW.
On page 404 of the Submissions Report, it is stated that Water NSW acknowledges the importance of the natural values of the upstream area but considers that these cannot be considered in isolation from the substantial societal benefits that the Project would provide.
BNSW Response
We can only disagree. We consider that the impacts on the environment of the upstream are simply too substantial to be dismissed and Water NSW abandons this flawed proposal and considers other measures for flood management in the Nepean-Hawkesbury catchment.

Yours sincerely,

David Bell
President
Bushwalking NSW Inc.
5 December, 2022

To whom it may concern,
[this is a near copy of the submission I made on Oct 28th, 2021].
It now appears we have to resubmit as the Perrotet Government have declared this a state critical project (PIR), without federal funding promised, and only 5 months out from the state election; whilst discounting the more than 2,000 prior objections to this project. Warragamba appears to have become a political football nominated by a near authoritarian premier, who wants to "put people before plants and a few animals". Which whilst laudable aims appear to be political slogans rather than based in any fact regarding the benefits and disadvantages or the dam raising.
We came to the Blue Mtns in 1990 to enjoy the lifestyle afforded by the local environment and its flora and fauna (via bushwalking and living in proximity to the Blue Mountains National Park).
When the World Heritage GBMA (Greater Blue Mountains Area) was announced in 2000 this action was clearly an indication that the original UNESCO nomination by the Australian Federal & NSW State Governments also recognised the need to protect this area of outstanding universal value (refer https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/917/).

That was a time to celebrate their joint decision.

The NSW Government now (2016) deem that raising the Warragamba Dam by initially by 17m, thereby flooding up to 6,000ha of that GBMA on the scantily modelled pretext that this action may "possibly" ameliorate flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain (H-N floodplain).
This NSW Government project does not appear to have considered reasonably the environmental and first nation cultural impacts to the BMNPWHA. In fact it seems that may be considering modifying the boundaries of the WHA

This is a time to condemn a poorly formulated solution to flood plain management.

Hence we strongly oppose raising the dam wall which will cause untold damage to the World Heritage GBMA.

Other options need to be investigated by the NSW government in regard to flooding in the H-N floodplain, and local authorities should not be encouraged to allow excessive further density of population to occur within this already overburdened residential zone.

Other points of concern:
* 65Kms of wilderness rivers (eg Kowmung) would be inundated
* 1,500 indigeous sites estimated to be inundated
* Habitat of endangered Koala & Honeyeater colonies to be drowned
* Only 7.5m of the 17m dam wall increase has apparently been considered in the environmental assessment , this seems absurd...

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall at Warragamba Dam.
The additional area affected by flooding is part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and has significant natural and cultural values that will be degraded. Even if the dam only reaches peak levels every few years this will kill vegetation and leave the area exposed to erosion and weed infestation. Our World Heritage areas should not be deliberately damaged - this is a breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
Numerous cultural heritage sites will be impacted by the increased water levels and the Traditional Owners are opposed to their destruction.
This proposal will not prevent flooding in Western Sydney as nearly half of floodwaters come from areas unaffected by the dam. In heavy rainfall years such as we are currently experiencing, the additional capacity of the dam will be fully used and flooding will occur from the dam as well as the other sources.
This means additional areas of the floodplain should not be developed even if the dam wall is increased in height as these areas will be subject to flooding in some years. Other solutions for housing Sydney's rising population need to be considered.
Alternatives to raising the dam wall have not been properly considered and there are likely to be cheaper and provide a better return on investment than the current proposal with less environmental impact.
Increasing the height of the dam wall is an old-fashioned "engineering" solution. It is counter-productive to continue with the same type of solutions that have created our problems.
We need new integrated solutions to adapt to our changing climate.
Please do not approve this dated and destructive proposal.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
All of the objections to this proposal are well known but are seemingly being ignored. One has to ask why?
A $2billion (and counting) project that will do almost nothing to contain flooding along the floodplain is frankly bonkers. It would make much more sense to use that $2 billion to buy out existing businesses and homes currently in harms way.
It just dosen't make any sense.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall (WDW) for the following reasons:
(a) The irreversible damage that will be done to the Blue Mountains National Park (BMNP) and its boundaries including the destruction of the Kowmung River, damage to many of the environmentally sensitive habitat areas essential to flora and fauna including important habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and other Endangered and Vulnerable populations.
(b) Destruction of more than 1500 aboriginal cultural heritage sacred sites by inundation completely disregarding the concerns of Traditional Owners.
(c) Raising the WDW may reduce the frequency of flooding downstream, however 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the WD catchment. No matter how high the WDW is raised it will not prevent flooding in the Hawkes-Nepean Valley (HNV).
(d) The effects of future sea rises due to climate change in raising and exacerbating the water levels in the HNV, which will happen, are not considered.
(e) The future inundation of properties in the flood plain areas will in the future undoubtedly result in large property compensation/buy back claims.
(f) You are ignoring the UNESCO World Heritage Committee standings on the proposal.
This is a tax payer funded scheme seen to ultimately benefit property developers to further profit from development of the Western Sydney Flood PLain.
I have been avid birdwatcher, bushwalker and camper in many areas of the BMNP in areas including the Kanangra Walls and its gorges, cross country walks to Yerranderie, Kowmung Rv, Mt Colong, Megalong and Canimbla Valleys for over 40 yrs which have been the most enjoyable years in the life of many friends and myself.
Flood Plains should no longer be developed for housing but instead be used for food growing. This proposal is a tragedy.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose raising the Warragamba Dam Wall, this is the second time I have needed to make such a submission, this time because the NSW government has changed this project to "Preferred Infrastructure" and basically dismissed my previous expressed concerns.
I have lived in the Hawkesbury LGA for over 40 years. This stunning environment has given me recreational opportunities such as canoeing and bush walking. Over the years I have been able to extensively walk areas of the Blue Mountains and appreciate why its UNESCO World Heritage Status is so richly deserved with its unique fauna, flora and indigenous cultural history. The thought that areas of World Heritage are to be inundated as well as our precious National Parks seem to make a mockery of previous protections.
Having walked in some 'less travelled' areas I have come across evidence of indigenous habitation and do not believe that this cultural heritage has been appropriately assessed. The thought that numerous heritage sites could be inundated by this project beggars belief in this day and age.
Birding friends have impressed upon me how fragile some of the unique bird populations really are and the impact of a possible 2 week inundation during severe weather conditions will have an marked impact on the food and habitat for these small populations.
Flooding of a extensive length of the Kowmung river one of our last “Wild Rivers” will have a permanent affect on its pristine condition and make a mockery of the ‘protected’ status of it under the National Parks and Wildlife Act.
The fact that this proposed solution will not stop flood events in my area seems to be ignored with development on flood plains appearing to continue. Operating the dam in “Flood Mitigation” mode with the heightened dam wall may reduce the frequency of flood events but would extend those that we will experience when the water has to be released. There would also be the possibility that future authorities find the allure of increasing Sydney’s water supply as a easy solution to a ever increasing population in the Sydney basin and may scrap the flood mitigation mode.
I am opposed to raising the dam wall for the above reasons and believe that this proposal would endanger the status of the Blue Mountains UNESCO World Heritage area, changing irrevocably much of the natural and cultural environment. There does not seem to be due importance to protecting the values that allowed this area to achieve its World Heritage status.
Yours sincerely,

Raising the dam wall WILL NOT significantly mitigate agonist flooding. The best way to ensure people’s safety in flooding is to STOP BUILDING ON FLOOD PRONE LAND & to ENSURE SAFE EVACUATION ROUTES FROM LOW-LYING AREAS. A proper Environmental Impact Study would be appreciated — not a land-developer sponsored whitewash — a proper, thorough, independent study.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to raising the height of the Warragamba Dam Wall. I am a life member of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness and attended board meetings 2006-2020. In 1960 I attended the Outward Bound School on the Hawkesbury River. I walked from Kanangara Walls down the Kowmung River at Easter/ ANZAC Day for many years.To plan to change the boundaries of flood inundation breaches the hard won BMWHA and ignores these facts: Below the dam wall and abutting the flood plain the Nepean, Grose, Colo,Macdonald Rivers and the South, Eastern and Cattai Creeks. These rivers increase the magnitude of the upstream flooding by preventing the escape of floodwaters.
NSW Government should improve the Warragamba Dam by building an auxiliary spillway and new gates and develop a comprehensive flood management plan. This would mitigate the most frequently occurring floods.
Stop development of new homes on the flood plain.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose raising the height of the current Warragamba Dam wall.
The cost to the taxpayers and the fact that the works done on a additional slipway several years ago that was supposed to alleviate problems has shown that our money has not been used effectively previously.
The dam was originally built for good quality drinking water supplies for Sydney. Sydney Water and Health NSW have raised serious concerns about futre water quality by raising the dam wall. We need clean good quality water to live every day. Floods only happen sporadically.
Since this wall raising proposal was made and highlighted a problem for building more homes in the Nepean flood plain, I am already unable to obtain any affordable insurance flood cover for my property.
Flooding large areas of BM World Heritage Area is also totally unacceptable to UNESCO and many local residents and traditional owners and custodians of the land.
This project appears to be steam rollered through the system to allow development on existing flood plains, which are already susceptible to flooding from rivers and creeks downstream past Warragamba anyway.
With a State election due in a few months I am sure this will be a big issue and I will be looking closely at my local representatives stance with regards to future development and especially dam wall raising.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba dam wall due to the environmental impact and destruction of aboriginal cultural sites. The destruction of wilderness areas containing unique and endangered species cannot be justified when alternative options exist but were not assessed in the EIS. Almost half of the flood waters do not come from the Warragamba dam catchment so raising the dam wall will not prevent future flooding.
The report dismisses advice against the raising of the dam wall from many reputable sources including the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, Sydney Water, NSW Health, and the traditional owners. The Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites have both criticised the report for not meaningfully assessing cultural heritage or performing community consultation. This condemnation from multiple independent sources show that this report is not thorough or independent and has failed to accurately assess the negative impacts of the project.
I spend a lot of time hiking in the Blue Mountains and would be deeply saddened to see these areas flooded. Protecting these wilderness areas for future generations may not show an immediate and obvious economic benefit, but benefits the community in less direct ways including through tourism and ensures future generations can enjoy and experience our unique natural environment. When species of plants and animals are driven to extinction they are lost forever and will never be experienced and enjoyed by the next generation.
I respectfully request that you reconsider this project and seek an alternative solution.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the current NSW Gov's interminable desire to see a raising of the Warragamba wall as its solution to western Sydney flooding effects on housing developments it continues to give its blessing to without the appropriate safeguards?
Almost every possible stakeholder has already stated their opposition to the mission.
The further destruction this will cause to an already diminished and deteriorating environment.
The further loss of animals and other species that may still call the current valley their home.
The World Heritage status so compromised..... how in 2022 can Gov be entertaining a solution that is so destructive?
This is Gov making further irresponsibe decisions for past and ongoing mistakes and perpetuating people's belief and trust that Gov has the communitys best interest at heart.
I would like to see the Gov's mitigative approach which is considered, multi-fold and honest.
Lastly, I'm so disappointed in the manner by which the Gov has appointed these "Critical State Significant" and "Shovel Ready" infrastructure projects that are so very important they are beyond the scrutiny of the people who fund them and are inevitably so environmentally destructive.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to raise my concerns about the effects of raising the wall of Waragamba dam. It will not change the topography of the flood plain downstream. Flooding will continue to overwhelm any man-made attempts to outwit Nature, though it may appear for a few years that success has been achieved. In the face of the recent and continuing flooding events in NSW, smarter solutions than rebuilding and levee building will be required.
The heritage of First Nations is also our Heritage: the Hawkesbury Sandstone I grew up exploring is still alive with the sites and signs of tens of thousands of years of occupation. This includes rock art: the emu on the rock for example. Emus were once ubiquitous in Australia: do we want to see them disappear from the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, as they have disappeared from Kuring-ai Chase National Park? There are other endangered species and Threatened Ecological Communities. Looking beyond the short term profits made by selling land to developers, our future lies with manitaining bio-diversity.
For our children and grandchildren, look in the longer term and abandon the short- sighted ineffective plan to drown so much natural habitat.
Yours sincerely

To whom it may concern,

I make the following submissions in response to the exhibition of (1) the Preferred Infrastructure Report, (2) the Responses to Submissions Report and (3) the "Statement of Reasons Declaration of State Significant Infrastructure and Critical State Significant Infrastructure"

1. Preferred Infrastructure Report
I object to the proposal.
In outline, my reasons are:
A. Implementation of the proposal will have significant, negative and permanent impacts on upstream ecology and Aboriginal cultural heritage as well as a negative and permanent impact on part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
B. The Report does not give sufficient weight to the significant adverse effects of the proposal on:
(i) upstream ecological impacts including in relation to specific threatened species
(ii) upstream Aboriginal cultural heritage areas
(iii) the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
C. The Report does not give adequate consideration to the alternative strategy of permanently lowering the Warragamba Dam FSL coupled with improved operation and management of the dam (in its current configuration) as a flood risk mitigation strategy.
2. Response to Submissions Report by Water NSW
The Report does not adequately (1) analyse the submissions received through the public exhibition of the EIS or (2) respond to matters raised in those submissions.
The Report (1) fails to give proper weight to matters that weigh against the project and (2) gives excessive weight to matters that weigh in favour of the project - the acknowledged detriments are understated, while the presumed benefits are overstated.
3. Statement of Reasons for Declaration of Critical State Significant Infrastructure
The "Statement of Reasons Declaration of State Significant Infrastructure and Critical State Significant Infrastructure" is inadequate to justify a declaration of Critical State Significant Infrastructure (CSSI).
The public have been invited to "Have Your Say", yet one effect of the CSSI declaration is to exclude the public from having any effective say on the decision of whether to proceed with the project.
Detailed reasons sufficient to objectively establish a clear case for the exclusion of the public should be provided.

Yours sincerely,
Phillip Rattenbury

To whom it may concern,
I am totally opposed to the Raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. The NSW government has stated that the raising of the dam wall will significantly reduce flooding evens in the Nepean/Hawkebury flood plains. This is not entirely correct, given that over 50% of the flood waters affecting the areas do not come from behind the dam wall. A better flood mitigation method would be to spill water from the dam before large rain events occur - meteorolgical reporting is pretty good these days. By spilling water early, room will be left for the rain events to fill, delaying the need for more spill, which would probably push the spill past the rain event period, thus reducing the impacts of the spill.
To that, raising the dam wall will cause loss of habitat for endangered and critically endangered, flora and fuana, and destroy rare places of natural beauty. This is not acceptable in a time of mass extinction crises. I heard that the Premier of NSW said that he would put human safety above a few trees. The problem is that humans have caused the issues of changing and more adverse weather patterns but not looking after the trees.
Saving the trees, better and proactive spill management, and not allowing development on the flood plains is the solution. If you are worried that Sydney will run short of water, spend the money on more desalination plants, and run them on solar/wind power.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am writing in opposition to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. While I do not live in western Sydney, I have followed the issue over some years. In my younger days I spent much time walking in the Blue Mountains, and was especially fond of the Kowmung River area, which I believe will be impacted.
While recent floods have no doubt been used to reactivate a largely discredited project, I am still aware of the threat this will make to the World Heritage listing of the area, as well as providing a false sense of security in the matter of future flooding.
I recall, in the 1970's, opposition to opening areas of the Georges River to housing development, and the assurances given that floods would not be an issue. I am aware of recent flood evacuation warnings being given for those areas.
I do not trust that the raising of the dam wall will not be used to promote future housing development.
I believe that other flood mitigation proposals have been put forward, and should be given as much consideration and public discussion as the dam wall proposal, and that no work should commence until this is done.

To whom it may concern,
The proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall is preposterous. The report has:
* repeatedly ignored the traditional owners and inappropriately assessed cultural heritage. It has lacked meaningful consultation with the Gundungurra traditional owners and community members
* ignored the advice of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee by changing the boundaries of the Blue Mountains World Hertiage Area, thereby risking the World Heritage status of the cherished Blue Mountains (which protects a unique ecosystem close to a world city and brings in many tourist dollars, so has enormous economic value)
* dismissed the concerns of Sydney Water and Health NSW into the effects this would have on Sydney's drinking water quality
* attempted to justify the destruction of the Kowmung River, a wild river, famous for its pristine condition
* dismissed concerns that rare and unique species, and threatened ecological communities will be adversely impacted
* will destroy more than 1,541 identified Aboriginal cultural heritage sites
* dismissed viable alternatives to raising the dam wall
* not assessed viable alternatives to raising the dam wall
* ignored the fact that about 45% of the floodwaters that affect the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain come from outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
I am currently doing postgraduate studies in environmental management and am aware that this report goes against all principles of robust considered research and consultation. I have visited the places that would be flooded. Raising the wall destroys far more than it will save.
There is inappropriate development on floodplains, floodplains that the original inhabitants warned colonists about in the early 1800s. Floodplains flood. That is their purpose. This makes them prime agricultural lands, but poor and very risky development lands.
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will damage far more than it will alleviate. Don't build on floodplains, do thoroughly investigate better alternatives to raising the wall.
Yours sincerely,

Mon 5/12/2022 @ 6:42 AM
I totally oppose the dam wall being raised. I feel this is the easy way out for the NSW government when there are so many alternatives. I am angry that a World Heritage area is going to be flooded. Just more of our natural environment destroyed by useless governments. This area is beautiful natural habitat with wombats, who will be drowned or killed as they move to new areas. Wallaby's also will be in the same situation, not to mention snakes, lizards and all types of creatures living under the ground. The flora also is the most beautiful in NSW and I and my friends just love it. I thought you were going to build proper drains etc but that is too difficult for the government's simple mind. Get innovative and stop this stupid idea.

Mon 28/11/2022 @ 5:48 AM
How dare you destroy more habitat for the easy way out for the NSW government. Raising the dam wall will destroy vital habitat for the remaining wildlife living above the present dam wall. The government should be working below the dam wall doing vital ground work to diver waters. How often do we have to voice our concerns with regard to this destruction again. Indigenous peoples have also been ignored. When will you stop destroying our natural world?

To whom it may concern,
• 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. No 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.
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.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I’m completely opposed to the Warragamba Dam wall being heightened. This will do nothing but encourage further disastrous flood prone development on land that is used to flooding. It’s backward not progressive.
I live up river from the Burragorang valley at Bullio. Some of my neighbours land in the southern part of the Burragorang valley will likely be impacted from the dam raising. Our own property has 7km river frontage further south and we are also concerned.
On a broader level the environmental impact will be disastrous, not to mention the inpact of losing thousands of Aboriginal cultural sites.
If this proceeds then it’s clear that it’s money-grubbing development takes far greater precedent then the safety of people and their possessions, environment and cultural heritage.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I believe it is time for the NSW govt to cease kowtowing to developers, & instead, do what is right for the people of Sydney & their environs. Raising the dam wall will be devastating for the environment & areas sacred to our First Nations people. It will not prevent future flooding &, in fact , will ultimately put more people in harm's way. Maybe this govt should consider doing the right thing as a parting gesture.
Yours sincerely,