Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern, The Dam plan will not solve current problems but will contribute to the extinction of native wildlife. Please leave well enough alone.

To whom it may concern,
It is a risky and unecessary development to increase the dam wall, especially when it already impacts so many species of wildlife. Not too mention next time we flood, the devastation caused when water levels exceed there true capacity and where will the overflow go????

To whom it may concern,
I am writing this submission because I am extremely concerned about the ongoing loss of natural habitats for local fauna and flora.
The raising of Warragambal Dam wall would flood and destroy upstream habitats and even part of a National park.
Contrary to the claims it would not protect the downstream areas from flooding, as substantial amounts of the catchment does not flow into the dam!
I urge you to consider these concerns when making a decision!

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the dam raising. It would be a tragedy to destroy Workld Heritage sites to allow more over-development below the dam.

What you are proposing is not only destructive to the surrounding environment but also very dangerous to all those who live below.

To whom it may concern,
Environmental destruction is too commonplace in our current Era of Extinction.
State & Federal governments might consider employing people who actually care about the existential crisis that exists - for people & the planet.
Annihilating this beautiful region of Australia is environmental vandalism at its worst.
The opportunity to explore other options must be seized to avoid these hazardous plans.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly believe in protecting the natural beauty of our great country. Areas such as the Kowmung river and the blue mountains are areas where I have bushwalked as a child and as an adult and are part of my identity as an Australian.
The government should consider the environmental impact to the native flora and fauna of the region, such as the platypus and the Camden White gum which is part of the a world heritage listing. Our cultural heritage is important to our national identity, do not destroy the Gundungurra traditional owner sites.
The raising of the warragamba dam wall will not protect the properties on the floodplain as 45% of the floodwaters are from areas upstream from the warragamba dam catchment.

To whom it may concern,
It is frustrating and dissapointing to hear that the NSW government are looking to raise the Warragamba dam to allow for people to live in floodplains without suitably investigating the impacts on economy, ecology, cultural sites, historical sites, national parks, bushfire risks, environment and the safety of people that would live in the new housing developments.
Placing housing developments on flood plains is asking for trouble and puts families at risk (financially and their lives). Within only a few years it is likely that those houses will be unsafe to continue to live in without significant works. But also from a flood perspective, half of the flooding in the valley comes from waters that are not controlled by the Warragamba Dam. So there will still be a significant flood risk. Living in a flood plain is never a good idea.
There are many condemning the environmental impact assessment and its flaws, suggesting it was not done properly and should not be accepted as the basis for further decision making. It is pretty dam-ing when the impact assessment was condemned by several of the government’s own agencies, requesting it to be redone. The shortfalls include (but are not limited to) threatened species surveys, flood modelling, economic benefits, bushfire field surveys and ecological surveys.
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has also been criticised repeatedly for lack of consultation and lack of appropriately assessing the imacts on cultural heritage, sites and traditional owners.
As someone whol loves getting outdoors to explore Australia's many natural wonders, the impact on the Blue Mountains World Heritage area is deeply concerning. Raising the wall will likely cause natural and cultural damage to the area (a clear breach of the World heritage Convention), including ecologiocal communities and systems, rivers, wildlife habitats, tree and plant species and endangered populations. This is an area that Australians and international tourists shouldn't have to fight to protect.
The short sightedness and cutting corners for a profit is obvious, helping to line the developers pockets (who don't need any more help with that!) at the tax payer's, families', indigenous communities' and environment's expense.

To whom it may concern,
I object to this proposal on that basis that it is environmentally destrcutive.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to make a submission in opposition to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Members of my extended family, some of whom are now deceased, have lived and worked in the Burrogorang Valley. Some of them were displaced by the original building of the dam and carried the grief of this event and what it destroyed to the end of their lives. They related tales of the beauty, agricultural fertility and cultural significance of this area to me. It seems to me that preventing the massive ecological and human losses and disruption this new project would entail must take priority over further extending Greater Sydney, which now spreads like a cancerous blot on the landscapes of Western and Southwesterm Greater Sydney, not to speak of the devastation Aboriginal communities must endure at the contined loss of their cultural heritage.
Furthermore, there are some facts that are relevant - I would say imperative - to consider, and which make it clear this is not a project that should be continued:
• 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% - 81%!! of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken. Why not?
• Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. How does this pass as sufficient?
• Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained. Why not?
• No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS. Surely this should be a mandatory requirement of any project of this scale.
• These facts make it clear that 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.
We are talkng about a World Heritage area which is on UNESCO's World Heritage list. It is my understanding that raising the wall would breach the obligations that Australia has undertaken under the World heritage Convention.
Once again, Australia will be acting like an international pariah, with no respect for nature and cultural heritage, inundating many kilometres of wild rivers and over 1000 hectaris of a World Heritage area.
It is also my understanding that the Traditional Owners have not consented to this travesty.
Finally, why have other options not been considered? It seems the EIS didn't take any into account. Recommendations have been made to adopt a combined approach of multiple options that would be more cost-effective, but I understand these were not comprehensively assessed.
My consternation and sorrow are so great that I beg all involved parties to rule out this planned wall raising as a viable option. You may think it does not affect you, but by insisting on this course of action, you are contributing to the continuing ecological and cultural trashing of our country. Please listen to your better angels.

To whom it may concern,
Raising the dam wall will affect a world heritiage site and decimate indigenous scared sites. It will also create no additional water supply. This is such a backwards move. I urge people to look forward to modern solutions, not backwards... no one is building dams anymore.

To whom it may concern,
i believe the environmental impact of raising the dam wall will have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment and will negatively impact the Blue Mountains National Park. It will destroy Indigenous cultural artifacts that should be protected.

To whom it may concern,
Do not increase the height of the Warragamba Dam.
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
The NSW Government is proceeding with plans to raise the Warraagamba Damwall by 17 metres. I have serious concerns about this. THere would be 6km of wild rivers and up to 6,000 hectares of national Parks inundated by raising the dam wall.
Surely to protect people living on "floodplains" there are alternatives such as flood excavation roads,lowering the full supply of the present dam and reducing floodplain development.

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.
• 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.
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.
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.

I have lived and loved the moutiains for the past 6 years since ive moved here. I'm part of many organisation that use the Blue moutain heritage to run activities such as wilderness education and scouts. The heritage is such an important piece to the blue moutains. 65 Kilometers of wilderness rivers, 5700 hectares of land will be overwhelmed from the dam harming thousands of living things and even endangering some species such as koalas, and platpus. This is why the dam shouldn't be built and the blue moutain heritage should be saved.

To whom it may concern,

I walk through the stunning nature hikes in the Blue Mountains and understand that what you propose will be damaging.
I oppose this developement and ask that you provide housing if it is needed elsewhere so our ever reducing natural forests and habbitats can be protected.

To whom it may concern,
The airport, enlarging the warragamba area are two very lazy solutions. To destroy a world heritage park that cleans the air and creates an environment to create clouds and thereby rain is truly short sighted and rather moronic. It also draws tourism and is economically a treasure trove.
Further destruction around the Sydney basin is of such incredible stupidity it's hard to believe anyone can even contemplate it!
These projects are not needed, there are better ways to gather water and the airport is a very dodgy deal.....

To whom it may concern,

I have been a bushwalk up in the Blue Mountains all my life and I see this area is incredibly important for cultural, environmental and many other reasons
I don't believe necessary and effective studies has been done to determine the benefits of raising the dam wall or the loss of plant and animal species and indigenous cultural aspects.
The political damage and subsequent backlash to an incorrect decision could be catastrophic and I think it's wise to err on the side of caution here

To whom it may concern,
I am making this submission to express my absolute objection to the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam. Warragamba Dam is set in an area of wilderness which is environmentally and culturally of great importance.
Raising the wall will inundate 65 kms of wilderness river and 5,700 hectares of National Park
recent bushfires impacted 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area, yet no field surveys of wildlife, including threatened species, or aboriginal cultural sites have been carried out simce then.
As no modelling of the claimed flood and economic advantages has been carried out, the proposal has absolutely no justification.
Inadequate studies of the impact on the environment, nor of the flooding and economy benefits means there is no case to support this political bubble thought.
This propsal mist be abandoned