Warragamba Dam Raising

The raising of the Warragamba Dam wall provides a good opportunity to upgrade an aging piece of critical Sydney infrastructure and safeguard our water supply through the strengthening and modernisation of the dam structure and operating systems (not additional water capacity).
Past studies have shown that the calculations undertaken for the initial construction were deficient in the aspects of large rain events - which we are experiencing (and are predicted to experience) in a higher frequency and intensity than ever before, this was realised by the construction of the emergency spillway. The current design of Warragamba Dam was not initially intended for flood mitigation purposes, but it can be seen from recent events that flood mitigation must be now considered.
It will be of great benefit for all downstream areas to have control over the intensity of releases and the ability to delay a release as not to amplify the storm surges of other inflows into the Nepean river. This will help protect downstream properties and the natural environment by limiting the rapid rise of rivers and their flow rates in flood events. It will also reduce the risk of human life in these extreme events through longer warning times and slower river rise rates.
There will be an upstream impact on the natural environment and cultural heritage (both European and aboriginal), however many objections do not consider that these areas will not be permanently inundated and will only be inundated in extreme weather events for short periods of time. There is also concern from many objections that the aboriginal heritage study was not thorough enough, but it is my understanding that these studies were undertaken using all information available on the location of aboriginal heritage sites in the area and there is no documentation available from the aboriginal or European communities of more heritage sites present or their location.
It is important to consider that the raising of the dam wall will not enable more development to occur in the flood plain areas downstream as it is not intended for zoning restrictions to be altered in these areas. They will still remain flood affected areas and will have continued protection through the existing legislation and legal system.
There will be some effect on the local community during the construction works, however there is to be strict rules of working times and pollution (noise/dust). Extra vehicles will be on the road during construction times, this may prompt the upgrade of the local roads and will only be during working hours. It is important to consider that construction works will only be undertaken for a few years and the existing townships surrounding the dam will return to normal afterwards.
There will also be a boost to local shops and business through the many workers that will be coming to the area who will require things such as food, equipment and goods and services. Many of the people living in the area work in construction and manufacturing industries.
The project will provide many new jobs, both during construction and throughout the life of the dam and may also give a tourism boost, helping the area be "put back on the map".
It is the considerations mentioned above that bring me to support the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. In my opinion the short and long term benefits of the project greatly outweigh the negative impacts that it may have.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”.
The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.
The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
Offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.
There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.

HI,

I have already made submission and placed comments in this box as well as an attachment. Those comments were really a covering letter. It is totally opposed to raising the dam wall.

I have made sme modififactions to the attachment, which conatined the bulk of my submission. They are in yellow on the attachment. I think these are important as, although conatained within the original are sort of locked away and putting them in this form rams the point home in a more effective way as it is clearer.

Please accept, if possible this new attacment (with the yellow bits added to the old, the rest is the same) as a replacment. If that is not possible, I just have to suck it up.

Thanks for making this possible. Ill also send it to the Planner address as above

Brian Crowther

I have been visiting & bushwalking in the Blue Mountains all my life. Like many Australians, I love getting out into the bush and experiencing the natural beauty of the rivers, plants and birds.
I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall because it will destroy a lot of wild places such as the Kowmung River, and wild creatures such as the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. I am a volunteer with National Parks & Wildlife Service, and have engaged in programs to vegetate areas in the Capertee Valley to provide breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters. This experience has made me acutely aware of the scarcity of remaining habitat for this critically endangered species. Raising the dam wall would destroy a lot of breeding habitat for this bird which would be very likely to drive it to extinction.
Many sites of great cultural significance to Aboriginal people would also be inundated if this badly– thought-out plan were to go ahead. Australia should value the fact that we have the oldest living culture on earth, and not destroy the links that connect us to that culture.
Raising the dam wall is an idea being driven by land developers who believe that it will increase the usable land in Western Sydney. However, this land will still be prone to flooding from other rivers, making any housing uninsurable.
I therefore oppose the raising of the dam wall on the grounds that it would destroy much that is valuable without providing any benefits.

For comments, see attachment.

To whom it may concern,
I object to the proposed dam wall raising because the EIS is flawed.
Personal family involvement when Warragamba was built, means I know the sluice gates were omitted from the plan, in error, and there were questions from within the construction authority about the soundness of the geological foundations of the structure. Tamper with the wall and bear the consequences of a potential disaster!

Furthermore, indigenous sacred sites have already been destroyed by the current dam and to contemplate the destruction of any of the remaining sacred sites of the Gundangurra people is entirely unacceptable.

On an environmental level, the Blue Mountain's World Heritage listing is based on the surrounding eucalypt forrests. This international recognition and status cannot be allowed to lapse. The economic benefits of tourism outweigh the stupidity of the wall raising proposal by 1000's to nil.

The flooding, which will certainly not be temporary as the government lackeys claim, of the precious Camden While Gums alone is enough to stop this proposal. The habitat loss for fauna, especially for species which are endangered, is also unacceptable.

The floodplain below the dam wall should remain floodplain. Greedy developers and stupid lobbyists and donors to political parties are not the people thinking citizens want influencing proposed infrastructure projects. The flooding situation is determined as much by local rainfall, storm evens and the height of the tides at the time of a flood as it is by overflow from the Warragamba Dam. If anyone thinks they can successfully stop the downstream flooding below the wall I strongly suggest they take a look at the history of Brisbane flood events. If you want to protect property and people don't built on a floodplain!

This proposal would be laughable if it wasn't so potentially destructive of environment, Heritage and indigenous sacred sites and the economy of the areas around the existing dam. The proposed dam wall raising should not occur.
Yours sincerely,
Robert Campbell

My name is Emily and I currently live in the Sydney region. Whilst I have lived here for years now I've still never made it to the Blue Mountains! I can't wait to go though and it's something I've been looking forward to for a very long time. Sadly, the Warragamba Dam would have distastorous impacts on the wildlife in this area. Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority. It would be devestating if the first time I make it to the Blue Mountains I am unable to truly witness the beauty of the area, and even more upsetting to think about the future generations that will miss out as a result of this project. We must act in respect of our natural wildlife, particular as climate change continues to wreak havoc on our Earth. Please reconsider.

To whom it may concern, Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will be catastrophic for our Blue Mountains wilderness, an area in which over the years over the years I have spent many enjoyable days in bushwalking. The Warragamba Dam wall raising is an appalling attempt to justify destroying the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area to satisfy Sydney's floodplain developers. Effectively the taxpayer will be subsidising real estate on the floodplain that should never be built. Raising the dam wall also only mitigates potential floods from one area, upstream of the dam, whereas there are other large tributaries downstream of it that will also flood. Raising the dam wall also does not factor in the potential damage that will occur with climate change with one in 100 year floods soon to occur on an annual basis. The flood plain below the dam will not be adequately protected because of the vast catchment area that raising the dam wall will not mitigate. Raising the dam wall will also destroy irreplaceable aboriginal heritage sites. Clearly the only safe & financially sound approach to mitigating risk is to not permit development in the flood plain & save taxpayers' money but not proceeding with the immense cost of this expensive & ultimately futile project.

Yours sincerely,
Allan Seymour

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Sydney Basin or the Blue Mountains for most of my life.
Like indigenous people I feel deeply connected to the native landscape that provides reserves of biodiversity, habitat and helps stabilise the climate and provide clean air, water, recreational and wild space for the population of the area.
I care deeply about preserving what are now remnants of indigenous culture, storylines and country.
I care deeply about preserving the species that remain.
I care about seeing a landscape as wild as possible that reminds us of our place in the world and universe.
Houses and people come and go. Richly diverse habitat and species come and then they go forever.
All that protects them is our awareness of how long they took to create, their value in the present and their right to the future. Its easy to destroy ecology but creating is something else.
Without developers, corruption and an economy based on housing that destroys the "green belt" planned previously to environmentally protected Sydney, now seen by developers as "green fields to fill in", would you even think of pushing the world heritage area ecology further to the brink by raising a dam wall above a floodplain? Would you think of lowering everyone's quality of life as a good idea? Would you even think of using prime agricultural land on a floodplain for yet more houses for people you will import and a noisy "Aerotroplolis" ?
Nothing is done to scale incrementally any more to monitor how it is absorped. Every development is all a Global scale slam dunk of a production that suits the corporations and polititians involved. Big money.
You can't just have an airport you have to build a city the size of Adelaide. Really? Who recommended that? What did they get outof it? This grandiose planning has much greater and more sudden impacts on the quality of all life in Sydney and the Blue Mountains. Someone benefits. It certainly isn't Australian first home buyers, indigenous Gundungurra/Dharug or the Regent Honey Eater.
With more people, cement, roads, power consumption and increased needs for water and less runoff to the water table you are further paving what was paradise. Clever? Who's getting rich here?
The Nepean River is not the major contributor to the natural flooding events of the river in the Hawkesbury region. Mind you live on a flood plain expect a flood, just as live in the Blue Mountains expect a fire. It's not nature's fault its poor human planning and greed.
Warragamba Dam raising is an unjustifiable exercise ecologically, economically, for indigenous first nation heritage, the World Heritage Area and for endangered and not yet endangered species.
Stop messing with what is left of any ecological value. We are not God or eons of time.We cannot recreate it. Shane's Park as an ark? Are we there already? Sad and shameful. The last bastion is being planned. Where to from there? Not paradise.
We are close to the edge. 10 seconds to midnight fo rthe habitat we need to survive. If humans are so clever why do they shoot themselves in the feet by destroying the ecology they are biologically dependent on?
Lets take a different turn in the fork in this road, think of long term benefits to all and stop greedy development. Think of another more constructive way to make money.
We want a good quality of life with clean air, clean water, lots of green recreational space, wild space, less crowding, less cabon producing cement and housing, indigenous heritage preserved and every species alive today kept alive for tomorrow and for our children. I'm sure spin doctors will get onto that concept and try and sell development as doing that. Orwellian double speak.
Leave the Warragamba Dam wall as it is and the wild rivers as they are. They have already been degraded. Have the forsight some of those before had. They did not exploit everything. They thought about posterity. Remember that is also government's planning job for the people.
yours sincerely,
Caroline

I am so tired of developers mighty dollar ensuring that government goes against the wishes of the population. Don’t ruin this area.

Yours sincerely,
Francene Russell

To whom it may concern,
I want to make a submission to the EIS for the proposed Warragamba Dam wall raising. I think that this is an awful idea for a number of reasons, including:
• 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.
• 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.
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:
o The Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
o Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
o A number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
o Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
o Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
o 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 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.
• 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.
Yours sincerely,
Jess Turner

I would like to make a submission in rejecting the raising of the Warragamba dam wall for the following reasons. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS. Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken. 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. Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal. 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. Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. 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,
Raymond Kennedy

To whom it may concern,
I'm a 77 year old from Queensland who loves the outdoors, wild places and Auatralia's remarkable biodiversity. Unfortunately, Australia has a sad record of biodiversity loss, and I am now spending much of my time doing what I can to slow down the destruction. Over the years, I have calculated the value of many engineering projects, but sadly, there is still no agreed way to calculate the future value of nature, for future generations. We destroy habitat and forests, with no value placed on nature. Developers assume they are free to destroy it.
Raising the Warragamba dam wall will damage natural and cultural values of this valuable World Heritage area.
Roughly 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, (including 1,300 hectares within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area), would be inundated by the Dam wall raising.
The Kowmung River is a declared a ‘Wild River’, which must be protected for its pristine condition.
There are unique eucalyptus species and diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value such as the Camden White Gum.
There are a number of Threatened Ecological Communities, such as the Grassy Box Woodland.
And, there is important habitat for endangered and critically endangered species such as the Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
Alternative and more cost effective options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall, (that would still protect existing floodplain communities), must be adopted.
These have not been not comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
Approximately 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
So raising the dam wall will not be able to prevent flooding in the valley downstream.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Hoskings

To whom it may concern,
As a professional plant ecologist and a regular bushwalker in the greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area I strongly oppose any plans to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is a place of outstanding ecological value, with numerous species and ecological communities not found anywhere else in the world. The southern Blue Mountains in particular is home to some fabulous wild waterways such as the Kowmung River. I have spent some magical times camping beside this beautiful river. These unique and fantastic places should not be sacrificed in the name of floodplain development, but that is what raising the Warragamba Dam wall will do.
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. 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.
I implore the NSW governemnt to seriously consider alternative flood mitigation strategies. Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will not only wreck an irreplaceable part of Australia's natural heritage, it will not work to stop floods affecting downstream communities in the long term, especially with the increased extreme rainfall events predicted by climate change. Raising the wall is a bad deal all round, that only seems to benefit developers looking for short term profits in Western Sydney.
Yours sincerely,
Ruby Stephens

To whom it may concern,
OBJECTION : TO WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL HEIGHT INCREASE
Saving Sydneys Trees (SST) is a Community Association that has a Facebook Following in excess of 10 Thousand and more when issues arise of greater Community merit.
It is with a number of Grave concerns that SST writes this Submission, in not only OBJECTION to this Proposal but Criticism of its Flawed Feasibility and Environmental Impacts Scoping and Presentation.
The raising of a Dam Wall and its implications to the existing Landscape, Community and Future, cannot be taken lightly. This proposal presents strongly as a Political Agenda Driven, Development Application rather than Sound Planning Process.
Its Long-Term Outcomes are not in the Public Best Interest nor an indication of Responsible Management of Public Funds and Lands, while failing the Public Expectation of Protection of its Resources and Assets. It also fails Environmentally (Which may be why these Analysis seem to be “Inadequately Presented)”. This is indeed a poor reflection on Responsible Governance.
With Science indicating the demands of Climate and Heat Impacts on Existing Development and Communities, this is going to increase financial stress and demands on Personal Budgets as they seek to cool and warm their lives. The provision of water as a natural resource needs to be Protected by our Administrations along with the existing Livelihoods and Community. Existing Industry and Livelihoods that provide Farm Produce and its location to Natural Pasture and water adds Resilience and Sustainability to this existing Area. The prospect of FLOODING these lands is seen as not conducive to Australia’s Resilience, Sustainability and Profitability. Pastures of this quality are unique and can not simply be moved elsewhere.
There is no “Higher Ground” that will do. Nor, is it conducive to the Quality of the Community Water Supply as livestock effluent can not be allowed to “Run Off” into it as they are forced up the hill, so to speak. This is just not viable or Responsible.
Wildlife and Tree Species already under the demands of Climates Changes and induced Fires and Storms are already suffering with enormous amounts of Public Taxes being directed to Cooling the Planet with Tree Plantings and Species Survival efforts. The Aged Habitat and Ecosystems of this region face annihilation and CARNAGE from this proposal. (This places it in direct Breach of The National Forest Policy Objectives and Factors that are Binding on all levels of Government and Development and to be adhered to. It also Breaches the Public and PARIS Agreement Expectations)
We note that NO $$ value for these Assets is present in the Cost Benefit Analysis YET, the linked, Passed on Costs are real and enormous. The detriments to the Public Best Interests are Profound and Lasting.
(*We make note that these omissions do not reflect well on the Planning Department who presented this Proposal WITHOUT such detailed Information)
*Suggestions of continued water supply falls to “FALSEHOOD” when one considers that Property Development and increased Demand upon resources, will in this case, simply increase demand and pass on economic demands to innocent purchasers, if Housing is allowed to be the result. This will result in Further Future Water Shortages. Dams of various sizes in Australia do dry up when demand is allowed to draw down against the unavailable. Placing more people in this situation is viewed as Abhorrent and Irresponsible.
*We see this proposal as simply a Mechanism for approval to Build which will place the Public at Personal risk of Fire, Physical and Economic Hardship;
*Increase Losses of the IRREPLACEABLE;
World Heritage and Cultural Sites on their own, along with the year 2000 UNESCO Listing, SHOULD have resulted in this proposal being “Left on the Drawing Room Floor”!
SST Call for :
· A DENIAL OF APPROVAL for this Proposal;
· The application of Funding for Training for Skilled Regenerative Agricultural Personnel, who can assist existing Landowners in BETTER Water and Land Management. (We see this as a Critical Step in providing for a Resilient and Sustainable Future and that is Climate Enabled);
· Review of Responsible Land Releases Criteria and Process with Base Case, Climate, and Positive Conservation Outcomes asured;
· The removal of Political Agendas from such proposals (We make note that the Current Governments Immigration based Economic Strategy that is heavily weighted on Building is in need of Critical Review and Restructuring for it puts the Public at risk of long term economic disadvantages. It places resources in the hands of Private Operators and carries great long term risks to the Public’s future Resilience);
Most Sincerely
Margaret Hogg
(On Behalf of)
Saving Sydneys Trees

To whom it may concern,
It is my personal belief that water management has been messed up too many times in the past to not take the time to properly consider the impact of raising the wall.
Ordinary people have entrusted you to do the right thing- how abut you step up and do it.

Yours sincerely,
Simadas Donna

To whom it may concern,

The raising of the dam wall should not go ahead.
• 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.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Wood

To whom it may concern,
To me the Kowmung river is a very special place. I have walked there many times from the 1970s with my father to just last year with my son. It would be seriously degraded by intermittent flooding if the dam wall was raised.
It would be a tragedy to go ahead with this misguided extension of the dam when there are better ways to protect lives and property. Much of the Neapean catchment is outside the Waragamba catchment so the dam will be ineffective. Allowing new development in low flood plain locations will put future lives at risk even with a dam extension, so it is the wrong solution.
Listen to Dr Keys.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Ewald

To whom it may concern,
I see the Warragamba Dam Raising project as too problematic to proceed as planned.

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.
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!

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 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.

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.
Thanks for considering my information.
Yours sincerely,
Merv Renton

To whom it may concern,
I am totally opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. Not only would the impact on the Blue Mountains World Heritage area be significant, it would also set a dangerous precedent allowing all of Australia's World Heritage areas and National Parks to be violated. We don't have a water shortage problem - we have a population surplus problem.
Yours sincerely,
Brett Davis