Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam. I am a part-time Blue Mountains resident, and frequently bushwalk and camp in the World Heritage area.
The raising of the wall will be extremely costly and will not prevent the worst floods, as a significant proportion of water flow is not captured by the dam. The proposal will reduce flooding for only a small number of existing residential properties, and seems predicated on allowing new devloment in the floodplain.
The impact on the Word Heritage area will be significant, as noted by ICOMOS, with major loss of endagered species' habitat and important Aboriginal sites.
A more serious consideration of alternives that have less impact and achieve flood mitigation is required.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern
I am strongly opposed to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. My principal reasons are that the proposal puts the interests of property developers wanting to exploit remnant floodplains for private profit ahead of the interests of the wider community in preserving World Heritage wild rivers and bushland, endangered flora and fauna, and Aboriginal cultural heritage.
I am a semi-retired lawyer who has frequently visited the Blue Mountains National Park throughout my lifetime, for bush walking, mountain biking and gravel riding. I love nature and believe that the biodiversity crisis is so serious that we must stop our war against it. I have children and hope to have grandchildren, and share the Zoroastrian belief that we should look after Nature and aim to make the world a better place for our children. The proposal is directly contrary to that aim.
Please do not proceed with this dreadful, short sighted proposal.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
We, as the human race have made far too many decisions based on financial gain.
We have not yet figured out that we are connected to nature and our populations mental health is deteriorating because of it.
Flood plains should never have been developed. The penalty should be on those that allowed this disgrace. Instead of perpetuating this disaster by raising the dam wall we should be moving the population to better land and restoring the flood plains of life.
It's not brain surgery. It's basic understanding of natural interaction.
No more destructive decision making.

Yours sincerely,

Sat 3/12/2022 @ 11:48 AM
I object to this proposal. Among the many destructive consequences of flooding this area, these are a few:-
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population will be flooded.
• 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;
• 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.

Sat 26/11/2022 @ 6:18 AM
To whom it may concern,
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,
Though my address is Petersham, my art practice is based in the Blue Mountains, and currently focused on the extinction of the regent honeyeater. The raising of Warragamba Dam will not stop flooding on the Nepean and Hawkesbury Rivers. The floodplains on these rivers should not be developed.
The EIS prepared for the dam raising has not taken into account the true effect to flora and fauna and aboriginal culture. What will be lost is irreplaceable. Not enough consultation has been made with local indigenous leaders and conservationist groups of Blue Mountains Natinal Parks.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am a researcher working with a small group of cultural astronomers at Western Sydney University. In my PhD research project, I worked with Aboriginal people from the Western Sydney (Dharug) and Blue Mountains (Gundungurra) communities to learn their stories and how they connect to the night sky. One of the creation stories is the Gurangatch story, which is about the creation of the Burragorang Valley. When the Warragamba Dam wall-raising was first proposed, I was contacted by Gundungurra people who showed me evidence that important rock art connected to the Gurangatch story would be drowned (and destroyed) by the wall raising. The importance of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is partially based on the Aboriginal heritage of the area, and the spiritual basis of the World Heritage Area would be destroyed by the destruction of the rock art, in a way not unlike that done to Jukkan Gorge by Rio Tinto. I'm sure the outcry when the first flooding of the upper Valley after the wall raising would be equally embarrassing to the NSW State Government. Other ways of mitigating the flood risk to Western Sydney are available and should be used before the destructive raising of the dam wall.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my strong concerns about the plan to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam wall - for the second time.
This hugely expensive and risky project is now deemed necessary because regulators have allowed land owners and property speculaters to unwisely locate housing on a plain notorious for extreme flooding from the early days of colonisation.
The dam's primary purpose was to provide drinking water for Sydney and to reduce the risk of flooding downstream, but was found to be under-specified and the wall quickly received its first raising.
More land for housing was released below the wall, but it still proves subject to repeated flooding. And, as recent rain and flood events show, the Earth's climate is now operating within wider and wider extremes of heat and rainfall.
Floods in Australia and the rest of the world are increasing in severity. Recently, a flood that submerged one third of Pakistan's land area and months of extensive damage has caused sometimes deadly flooding in many parts of Australia.
The lessons being learned across the continent is that levees, dams and other man-made efforts will never keep up with the impacts of changes in climate from global warming. We are seeing a cost to life and property that currently requires parts of whole towns, such as Lismore, to be relocated because of constant flooding.
In the increasingly extreme circumstances we expect from the impacts of climate change it would completely irresponsible to allow the lives of, potentially, tens of thousands of people to hang on the fate of a single man-made structure.
Sandbags and levee banks may be low tech and not protect property very well, but they usually provide time for people to evacuate.
Dam failure above an urban floodplain, for whatever reason, is a risk that should not never be contemplated.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising the Warragamba dam wall will not prevent flooding. Most of the flood water is entering the Nepean River downstream from the dam towards Penrith. There are a number of native species that live only in the area of the dam and they are likely to become extinct if the dam wall is raised. The correct solution is a smaller dam downstream to catch the overflow from Warragamba.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I served for five years on the Blue Mountains National Park Advisory Committee and have walked extensively throughout the Blue Mountains area since before there was a fire trail along Narrow Neck. My last paid employment was as Director of Studies of National Park Ranger Training in Sarawak. I have read and listened to the arguments in favour of increasing the height of Warragamba Dam and have formed an opinion that the proposal will not prevent all future floods but it will seriously compromise the integrety of the National Park.
I live in Richmond which is above the flood plain of the Hawkesbury River and am aware of the current residential developments that are positioned on the very edge of the recent flood high water marks.
I do not believe that raising the level of the dam will prevent all future flood events to or even exceeding recent desructive levels.
I do beliveve that arguments in favour of raising the dam are based on claims that can not be substantiated, made by those who seek financial benefit from property development on the known flood plains.
I object to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I have for many years opposed this increasingly outrageous proposal and will continue to do so despite my past concerns being ignored; including voting against the state government proposing it.
I grew up in north western sydney and know the Hawkesbury area very well, I have lifelong schoolfriends and other friends still living there and detrimentally affected by both development and flooding; including a sister who left floodprone Vineyard about 5 years ago and a brother who moved his family from Pitt Town to protected "bush" in Glenorie several years ago when the subdivision development of Pitt Town increased.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 25 years, have bushwalked extensively throughout the national park and I have had a lifelong commitment to support and help protect where I can the natural environment, species large and small and indigenous cultural heritage and their unceded land.
I object to the proposal on too many basis to comprehensively list but primarily and as a former academic and highly educated person, because there has been no case at all made to support nor justify raising the dam wall (other than one defective and discredited EIS a couple of years ago) and because of the unacceptable multi dimensional damage it will cause if allowed. It is a blatant politicised assertion only likely to benefit those with land to sell in the outer north west area, the construction development lobby and those with a vested political interest in securing marginal seats and announcing something they are unlikely to be around to see the consequences of.
Specifically, it has not even been costed, it is not supported by the two critical local councils, not supported by the insurance industry, i will have no effect at all for 45% of the flooding even if it does actually cause some flood mitigation and is not a multi pronged attempt to genuinely address the flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean area or genuinely assist those devastated and affected by it. That has been left to others. Any effects, if effective for flood mitigation, are at least 10 years away so there will be little to no accountability for those causing the long term damage and destruction. They are undoubtedly hoping for another extreme drought.
It is proposed for an old dam built on sandstone and for a completely different purpose of drinking water supply, is according to Sydney Water likely to negatively affect the quality of the drinking water and the dam has already had its capacity enlarged up to what was deemed a safe level years ago. Information about this is apparent in the historical records of the Dam Safety Committee that are apparently not considered. No account has been taken of the statistics for similar age/capacity dam failure internationally. No consideration at all appears to have been taken of the risk of catastrophic failure if there is further expansion of capacity by raising the dam wall to hold back more water, nor the extreme cost of in effect rebuilding the old dam wall to try to avoid this. Alternatives to either mitigate flooding by lowering the dam level and alternate water sources for drinking have not been considered nor costed.
No proper consideration and assessment has been made of the effect of climate change and the prevalence of extreme storm events, for either the catchment nor the water storage boundaries behind the enlarged wall, flooding caused by necessary overflows from the dam in its current or with an increased capacity because the wall is higher and an enlarged storage area with saturation of the catchment. Flashflooding downstream has and will continue to occur from these extreme events whether or not the wall is raised. The Minister MUST take account of climate change and scientic evidence of its likely effects and deny consent on this basis in addition to others.
The Minister must also take account of the international and domestic protective law that the state government attempts to circumvent and ignore. Changing the national park boundaries to excise an enlarged storage area and dam is a direct breach of these laws. It acknowledges that the area will be so damaged that it no longer reflects the environmental and cultural values upon which the protection is based and the raising of the wall is the cause of this damage. The environment values and endangered and other species upon which the World Heritage, national park and cultural heritage values legal protections are based will be destroyed. Add to the known endangered species affected by the proposal the recently listed koala. The Minister must take account of the impact of the proposal on koala habitat and to date has not. How many gum trees will be destroyed by flooding and how many of these are now protected habitat for our endangered koalas? The state government through their Infrastructure proposal are in effect proposing to build a dam to destroy an existing World Heritage listed and domestic law protected natural area and values endangered species habitat and changing existing boundaries doesnt change what is proposed nor provide any scientific nor public interest case at all to support doing it. The Minister must deny the proposal.
The current Premiers attitude to all this is apparent in his statements that "plants" do not have preference over the people in the north west of Sydney and "people have to live somewhere". People do not "have to live" on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain and there are both many other "infill" sights and potential residential intensification sites available for development in Sydney (ex Bankstown Airport post the opening of Western Sydney airport....old industrial sites.....refitted fibro housing....) and indeed the rest of Australia. Personal political attitudes of the politicians of the day must not be allowed to determine the validy and viability of very long term infrastructure; particularly when the proposal has been amended and is so actively promoted in the most marginal state seat 4 months before an election and the opposition proposes the opposite. The Minister should take account of this highly relevant consideration and deny the approval.
The indigenous custodians have stated their ongoing objection to the proposed destruction of more than 1500 known cultural heritage sites and an unknown quantity more of these plus songlines, and their land. It is highly offensive to fail to even acknowledge the custodians who are part of the oldest living culture on the planet, unless they are characterised as "plants".
I object to this atest proposal toraise the warragamba Dam Wall because it is so blatantly and apparently against the public interest in environmental, species and cultural heritage protection and in breach of very longstanding domestic and international protections put in place to prevent politically expedient and other reckless (if not negligent) proposals like this from becoming a reality.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to communicate my grave concern for the plan to "raise the dam wall". This is a populist catch call which will not be in the best interests of the people and the environment.
Action and investment is needed now to lessen the impact of flooding on the western Sydney flloplain. The work on the dam wall will cost billions of dollars and take many years to construct. In the meantime this funding could be used much more strategically to resolve issues that should never have been created only for the rapacious greed of developers and aligned politics.
The engineering of an extension of the dam wall is of great concern. The wall existing wall is decades old and risks catostrophic consequences should it fail in the future. I have read a report from engineers who spell out the engineering issues and I believe these have not been considered in the government reports.
Much of the floodwater causing strife in the Hawksbury enters below the dam wall and any raising of the wall will not address this issue.
The irreversible costs to the environment and the disregard for the traditional owners is an terrible legacy to leave the future generations. Already we leave destruction of the environment, inequality, injustice and economic disaster. Current generations should be doing everything in our power to mitigate against furthering this legacy.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba dam wall for the following reasons
1. I believe that it will not prevent flooding of houses currently built on the flood plain, or those yet to be built.
o It is more likely to result in even more development on the flood plain, because developers will claim that more areas are flood free.
o Then when it floods those people will be up in arms complaining and everybody's insurance will go up again, because insurance companies will offload their losses or go bankrupt.
o The dam will not protect the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley from floods, as approx 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas that are not upstream of Warragamba.
2. The raising of the wall will destroy valuable habitat, including 65km of wilderness rivers, 5,700 hectares of National Parks. Some of the habitat that will be destroyed is home to threatened ecological communities like Grassy Box Woodland and critically endangered species like the Regent Honeyeater.
3. There will be many cultural heritage sites inundated by the dam proposal.
4. Alternative options need to be considered and properly assessed.
Please give this very important matter more consideration.
Raising the dam is not the solution.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,

I wish to vehemently object to the raising of the warragamba dam wall. This will be an expensive folly, that will do little to mitigate flooding in the Hawksbury floodplains, would cause irreparable harm to the flora and fauna in the expanded catchment, would impact drinking water quality, destroy our cultural indigenous history and would harm tourism through the dismemberment of the Blue Mountains world heritage status. Alternatives to this egregious proposal include reducing the amount of water stored in behind the dam and increase desalination access for drinking water. Besides, the many other waterways flowing into the hawksbury river would still be major flood risks to the surrounding floodplains. The solution is not to allow more developers to build housing estates on unsuitable land. Climate Change is the major driver of increased storms and risks.
As a resident of the Blue Mountains, I witness firsthand the devastation that the increasing rainfall events are having each year on our region. Yet my reaction is always, why are houses being crammed into low lying paddocks, not "let's just build a big dam and continue to build". Please end this folly now.



Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Following the previous floods of the Nepean and Hawkesbury river plains my wife and I travelled to the confluence of various rivers, Nepean/Hawkesbury/Grose etc to understand the relevance of raising Warragamba.
Having seen the Nepean in flood at Picton and the Grose River in the Mt Irvine region I find it impossible to see the relevance of raising Warragamba as a solution to flooding.
I oppose the proposal as another waste of taxpayers funds pursuing a project that has no merit. It will not deliver the solution hoped for and like the George Tramway project is I'll advised and will be another embarrassment of the NSW Government.
The damage to the environment that will be wrought in the name of progress is just another excess of expanding human claims over the ever diminishing remnants of wilderness. It is a modern example of "Easter Island" logic in unsustainable development.
As a resident of Leura and frequent user of Blue Mountains trails I can only weep at the loss of habitat and species that Government policy will be responsible for.
it is also alarming the policy ignores the risks of imperilling our drinking water supply and dismisses the issues raised in the previous consultation process.
We live on the edge of the World Heritage Estate an area that is the most visited feature outside of Sydney. Please leave these natural features of the original Australia alone. Man has already passed the limits of excessive development.
Where's the vision and where's the leadership in NSW Government gone.
TO IGNORE THE ADVICE OF THE NSW PUBLIC SERVICE EXPERTS DENIES ONE THE RIGHT TO GOVERN.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Raising the dam wall will cause damage to ecosystems that can never be repaired. We can't afford to be doing this if we are to leave a livable planet for the next generation. The flood plains downstream are exactly that, floodplains that should never have been built on and never should be again. Please don't let developers money be a reason to destroy habitat, wildlife and Indigenous history.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am submitting this form as I have many concerns regarding the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. This project is being portrayed as solving the Hawksbery flood plain issues. This will not be the case.
This area has always been a flood plain and will be for a long time to come. To me, building on a flood plain lacks common sense. When the inevitable happens eveyone cries out "something must be done". Lets destroy other areas, to preserve where we probably shouldn't have built in the first place.
There are many other rivers and tributaries that flow in to the Nepean below the Warragamba dam, in fact a large percentage of the flood water comes from these rivers. the Grosse. the Colo, Wollongambe, Wollomi, Bungleborri, Bedford to name a few.
Raising the dam wall will not prevent the flooding and will destroy an already threatened eco system, That of the Blue Mountains National Park and the Kanangra Boyd Wildeness.THIS AREA IS WORLD HERITAGE!! IT IS SPECIAL..... S.P.E.C.I.A.L.
It has pristine rivers, unique bird and animal species whose food source exists on lands to be flooded, eucalypt species found nowhere else. There is also culturally significant sites that are still being discovered in this area.
There is so little of the natural bush left on our planet, and here is a plan to destroy more of it.
What we should be doing is assessing the alternative options more thouroughly, and devising a way to preserve our beautiful world heritage areas for future generations. Probably by the time these "planners" grand children are adults ther will be no wilderness left.
Protect it at all costs.

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
It seems this government is still ignoring the people and only listening to business that can make money out of this.
Why have environmental reports been ignored in relation to the raising of the walls on the Warragamba Dam?
How can this go ahead when so much will be lost?
I live on acerage and have let the trees grow and the birdlife come. I thought this was the direction of all Australians. With so many animals and birds now extinct how can this move forward with such little regard for the bigger picture.
The Blue Mountains has been a treasured place to visit with so many beautiful walks. This is a World Heritage area.
Please reconsider this decision and show Australia you are the best care taker of Australia for generations to come.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I am against the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Raising the wall will not save the homes built on the floodplain, instead more developers will be tempted to build hoping the extended wall will protect them...it won't.
Your report dismisses the destruction of World Heritage and National parks, these are for the Australian people to enjoy not for the government to destroy.
The traditional owners have been ignored and over 1,541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the dam wall proposal.
Alteratives to the increasing the height of the wall have been dismissed.
Floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the wall is constructed, it will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream....so the huge cost of the wall is a waste of tax payers money.
I have visited the Blue mountains many times in the past and have really enjoyed the beautiful environment.
I made a submission earlier but looks like mine and the 2,500 other submissions by the public were ignored??
I really distresses me that all these submissions from the caring public were dismissed, so will this happen again for these new submissions are they going to be ignored to pander for developers wanting more floodplains to build?

Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Enough is enough. The lib/ nat gov lost Vic election and federal because of the redneck behaviour
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I wish to register my opposition to raising the wall of Warragamba dam.
The environmental impacts would be devastating, and I think this deserves much more consideration than it is getting.
In fact, it is getting very little, as usual being put in the "doesn't matter" category.
I hope some decision maker will stand up for other than human interests, as riding roughshod over the environment is already having dramatic consequences, and yet, we keep doing it.
Time to stop.
Yours sincerely,