Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I'm very unhappy with the NSW Government's proposal to raise the height of Warragamba Dam. It is a poor proposal that is being spruiked for poorly set out reasons.
1. The proposal is terrible for Aboriginal people - how can we talk about 'Closing the Gap' while we are still destroying counrty that they hold so dearly.
2. The impact on biodiversity and conservation lands would be enormous and the EIS barely covers this issue. Why are there no offsets proposed ?
3. The EIS is very flawed and doesn't properly cover the impacts of raising the dam wall. The EIS system in NSW risks becoming just a 'sales document' and it undermines our trust in Government. Especially given current ICAC hearings, the last thing the NSW Government should be doing is flawed EISs for dubious reasons.
4. World Heritage sites will be impacted - we are supposed to care for these special places, not just damage and destroy things when it suits us.
5. Where is the genuine assessment of alternatives ?

To whom it may concern
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall on the following grounds:
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:
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
Please do not raise the wall on the Warraganda dam. This will yet again change the hydrology of the catchment and will not prevent flooding of downstream communities as the flood waters are derived from other catchments than the dam's . It will also endanger world heritage and wild rivers such as Kowmung river and thousands of hectares of National Parks land subsumed by the dam waters as well as threatening unique eucalypts and wildlife and cultural sites.

To whom it may concern,
I urge you not to raise the Warragamba dam. The consequences could be disasterous.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to object to the Raising of the Warragamba Dam as evidence shows that raising this dam will have longterm environmental, cultural impacts, the process of evaluating the project shows disregard for local Aboriginal people's rights to protect their cultural heritage, and it will not solve the problem of flooding the Napean valley.
The project proposal demonstrates a systematic failure to conduct a proper Environmental Impact Statement, for the following reasons:
• 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.
This proposal for the Dam will destroyed UNESCO declared World Herritage site, and violates Australia's international heritage obligations, under the World Heritage Convention, not to mention destroying a valuable tourist destination.
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 Gundungurra Traditional Owenrs have not given free and informed consent, and after the destruction of the Juruukan George we should not commit further acts of vioelence against local Aboriginal people's cultural treasures.
• 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.
•
• In addition, there more viable 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.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. Insufficient field surveys have been performed, especially regarding threatened species. The EIS is incomplete and insufficient.
Additionally, I have a PhD in environmental science and am particularly interested in volcanic tuff beds within the Permian and Triassic sediments of the western Sydney Basin, and their effects on the local ecology. Many of these tuff beds are yet to be reported and described. Raising the dam wall will cover these tuff beds in places, making it impossible to do any future research on them.

To whom it may concern,
As a trained conservation Biologist i understand there are challenges inregards to maintain healthy ecosystems.
But please do not let armchair environmentalists who have not read the EIS disuade the government from raising the damn wall, as it is a critical piece of infrastructure to help mitigate the impact of climate change upon the region of Sydney and waterways downstream

To whom it may concern,
I am totally opposed to the raising of the Warragamba dam wall because of its destructive impact on both the threatened species and the indigenous history that will be subject to raised water levels.

To whom it may concern,
I am making a submission opposing the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. I am a long time Sydney resident and have a long association with the Blue Mountains wilderness through walking in the areas that may well be destroyed by this proposal.
There are many concerns over the way this proposal is being pushed.
The EIS and cultural assessments are undertaken by an organisation (SMEC Engineering) barred by the World Bank and having a history of abusing Indigenous rights. An inadequate area has been assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The proposal would inundate a large number of identified Aboriginal cultural sites. 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. Free, prior and informed consent of the Gundungerra Traditional Owners has not been given.
The recent abuses by RioTinto are at risk of being repeated by the NSW government.
No post 2019/20 Bush fire surveys have been conducted to account for the enormous and long lasting damage caused. Threatened species surveys have been less than required and lacking expert input.
The proposal would enormously affect the World heritage and UNESCO listed Blue Mountains National Park with its internationally recognised Heritage values.
The Kowmung River, a most beautiful stream, is a protected declared wild river under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. There are unique eucalyptus species and threatened ecological species and habitats for critically endangered species including Regent Honeyeaters and emus.
It is a most remarkable, beautiful and unique location whose destruction can never be replaced, compensated for or offset. Australia has obligations to preserve this area for all mankind under the World Heritage Convention.
The EIS lacks adequate cost modelling of the stated benefits of the proposal to raise the wall.
The offset proposals are inadequate in turns of coverage area as the entire maximal affected area will suffer irreversible loss and damage from inundation. Despite the fact that any offset will not compensate for the losses in the area affected, there must be an investigation into why only a reduced area is considered for offset. Cost as a reason for reduction of the offset area clearly highlights the inadequacy of planning.
The adequacy of the proposal is further questionable in that 45% of flood waters arise outside of the Warragamba Dam catchment and the proposal cannot mitigate arising risks.
Alternative proposals including combined approaches already recommended as the most cost effective means of flood mitigation have not been adequately assessed.
The cost to community of the loss of such a unique heritage is not calculable and would be bourn across current and all future generations.
The situation of requiring flood mitigation arises due to prior inadequate planning and development of long known low lying and flood prone areas for inappropriate residential development. Large developers have derived benefit from pressuring approval systems to build in these vulnerable areas. Cost of mitigation should fall to them. The people of Sydney and NSW cannot be expected to suffer the loss of irreplaceable, acknowledged world class and unique heritage areas because of such past poor planning mistakes.
A more sophisticated and multi component approach to mitigation will be both more effective at mitigating risk and cheaper. The wilful destruction of such a large and unique area entertained in the current proposal cannot be countenanced.

To whom it may concern,
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:
• 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.
Please consider alternatives rather than destroy a world heritage site which must be preserved and protected for future generations.

To whom it may concern,
Proposals to raise the dam wall have been on the NSW Government and Sydney Water's Agenda since the early 1990's. The argument constantly proferred by the government and politician's alike is that the security of Sydney's water supply and flood mitigation must take precedent. In realiity we know that the latter will eventually see planning restrictions eased and further development and population growth take place in the Hawkesbury Nepean basin. What is the dollar value of this development to the NSW government versus the huge loss of biodiversity and cultural heritage that will occur once the dam level has been raised and the valley is flooded? These costs are truly intergenerational.

In terms of water security - have we truly exhausted the range of water demand management measures that can potentially be installed in Sydney homes to curb water demand? Perhaps if we priced water properly then this will change people's behaviour and make water use less profligate. Have we really explored opportunities for waste water recycling in new developments.
Raising the dam wall is shows that the government is beholden to the property developers and their lobbyists. There are several alternatives less costly alternatives!

I have looked closely into the Warragamba Dam Raising and have found that the wall should not be raised as it will not provide sufficient flood management , as a significant amount of floodwaters originate from catchments that are not upstream from Warragamba Dam. This means that even if the Warragamba Dam wall were raised then other catchments can cause significant flooding in the valley and would still be devastating for people downstream.

Also the environmental impacts of raising the dam wall are unacceptable. Australian Government documents have said as much. The area that would be affected by increased water levels is home to 48 threatened plant and animal species including the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater, and hundreds of Indigenous cultural sites. The significance of the area meant it is on the World Heritage list.

To whom it may concern,
I am very concerned about the NSW state government and property developers plans to raise the Warragamba dam wall by 14 meters.
The proposed empty space will be filled with water during wet times and this will scar and destroy an important area of our world heritage Blue Mountains National Park. Scaring to the wild rivers that flow into lake Burragorang wil be catastrophic and irreversible.
Future governments will be under pressure to fill this empty space permanently.
The potential to floodproof the Hawksbury flood plain will not eventuate because most of the Hawksbury water catchment is sourced from rivers other then the flooded Burragorang River and its tributaries. The Nepean River, Colo River, and other rivers and watercourses all bypass Warragamba dam wall, and flooding will still occur.
The best solution to mitigating flood damage to infrastructure on the Hawksbury flood plain is to support the farmers who produce agricultural produce for Sydneys food markets. Why is it necessary to close down this vital part of Sydney's food bowl and replace these valuable farms with a high density urban sprawl?
Have you forgotten the flooding along the Hawksbury flood plain early this year?
Please say no to the developers dollars, and abandon plans to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall.

To whom it may concern,
The three day walk from Kanangra Walls to Katoomba that takes in the spectacular Kowmung River is a legendary route amongst bushwalkers, and an indelible memory of mine. Along with my father and brother, I did this walk as a young teenager and it made a powerful impression on me. Since then, I have moved to Katoomba to start my own family and I hope one day to do the same walk with my two sons. The thought that this unique landscape will be irrevocably scarred before we have an opportunity to do so fills with me with great sadness.

The proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall is flawed and reckless on so many levels.
The recently released environmental impact statement is woefully inadequate and riddled with errors. SMEC Engineering, who undertook environmental and cultural assessments for the project, have a long track record of abusing Indigenous rights, and has had five of its subsidiaries banned by the World Bank after evidence of "innapropriate payments" was uncovered in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
Catastrophic fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken in preparing the EIS.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The Gundungurra Traditonal Owners have been treated with contempt throughout this process with spokeswoman and community leader Kazan Brown recently calling the EIS a "whitewashed piece of garbage".
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than the guidelines dictate. Field surveys were not adequately completed and expert reports were not obtained.
No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
In a damning indictment, Insurance Council of Australia CEO Andrew Hall recently said "even if we do raise the dam wall, that should never give false comfort because dam walls overtop no matter how big you build the dam".
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 EIS also failed to properly canvas alternatives to raising the dam wall in achieving the stated goal of flood mitigation and the protection of human life and property on the Nepean flood plain -- alternatives which could include government acquisition of properties and lowering the full supply level of the existing dam.
Until these and other alternatives are adequately explored, traditional owners are properly consulted, and a new comprehensive EIS is undertaken in partnership with consultant organisations that the public can have confidence in, the proposal to raise the dam wall should be utterly rejected.

To whom it may concern,
Raising the height of the Warragamba Dam wall is a mistake:
• risk from of catastrophic failure increase
• it does nothing about water entering the Hawkesbury/Nepean from other parts of the catchment (e.g. Nepean above Warragamba, Grose River & South Creek - all of which are upstream of the Sackville Pinch)
• it's highly unlikely to be less expensive than alternatives that can yield better results (Consider alleiviating Sackville Pinch)
• flood prone land will likely become more flood prone as sea levels rise irrespective of what can be done to mitigate inflow from Warragamba River
• value of World Heritage & indigenous sites will be diminished or destroyed. Consider too potential for federal legislation in response to Juukan Gorge. This may derail plans even after work has commenced or even completed
• Flood mitigation dams are worthless when full - flooding weather often occurs in back-to-back events. You may find that floods need to be created by releases of large volumes of water into waterlogged downstream in order to protect assets from anticipated subsequent downpours
• Sydney is increasingly in need of more freshwater - modifying Warragamba Dam (as has previously occurred) may result in future authorities dedicate the storage to water storage & supply rather than flood mitigation - thereby putting any flood prone land development & the people and assets there at risk of great harm
Please consider carefully all these points - a very great deal depends on you making the safest decision and one that protects heritage and indigenous values. Raising the dam wall, at the very best, will allow flood prone land (which will remain flood prone for the reasons given above) and people living there will be at great risk in large downpours

To whom it may concern,
DO NOT RAISE THE DAM WALL.
It is a bad idea and would destroy many things including Aboriginal sites and many native species that don't grow anywhere else. There are many endangered trees and birds that would be lost if this stupid plan went ahead. Also would not be helpful during flooding and could make things worse. I have lived in the mountains for over 40 years and would hate to see it lose the World Heritage listing.

To whom it may concern,
I am quite horrified at the idea of raising the dam wall and simultaneously losing the habitat for many endangered species. SO many species were lost in the bushfires just 2 years ago - and we don't even know just how endangered some species are as a result of the inferno. Now is the time to protect all native bushland, and move forward with new laws protecting flora and fauna, because so much of it has disappeared during the last half century.
Surely we can do better? Why are we not digging a new dam, instead of flooding habitat? We have machinery, we have the know how, and we, as a species, have already ruined some areas beyond nature's ability to repair them. It makes more sense to dig in an area we have already ravaged and ruined, and build an entirely new dam.
I've watched Sydney grow during the last 50 years, and I've watched the thick green strip down the east coast of Australia become narrow. On closer inspection I've seen the giant trees have mostly been removed, limiting habitat for marsupials and all sorts of birds. Humans have touched - and messed up - just about every part of the planet. After that, nothing is the same - and it might not bother humans but it certainly bothers the animals that have a right to exist and live in harmony with nautre.
I wish I had a greater level of trust and belief in those who are making such big decisions about MY land, MY country.
From what I've heard, raising the dam wall may be a moot point in a few years anyway, as there is intent to frack underneath the water supply. As we know, fracking uses thousands of litres of chemicals forced below the ground, and it's not like the water supply has been safely encased in anything other than nature, which means leaks, holes, all sorts of potential problems for Sydney's water.
Please propose alternatives to raising the dam wall - there have to be some.

To whom it may concern,

I am greatly opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam.
The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history of abusing Indigenous rights, and have recently been barred from the world bank.
Our recent severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. I am concerned that no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Also, 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. 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.
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.
I question the government's reasons for wanting to push ahead with this disasterous plan and urge everyone involved to reconsider, keeping in mind the damage to the environment the raising would inflict.
Thank you for your attention.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to raising the Warragamba Dam Wall. The damage to the environment which would be caused by such an act outweighs any real benefit.

To whom it may concern,
I have been bushwalking, camping and adventuring in the Blue Mountains all my life... with girl guides as a youngster, with outdoor clubs and friends, and with all members of my family. It is my haven and my escape from the pressures of the inner city where I live.
I don't believe that it is appropriate or sound to proceed with plans to raise the dam wall. From planning to consultation with indigenous communities, to safeguarding the protection of species and habitats in the area, and safeguarding aboriginal cultural heritage sites... the list is endless of areas where the whole proposal falls short.
I strongly oppose the raising of the Waragamba Dam wall.