Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
There is no good reason to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. We must learn to live within our means and that means using water with care and awareness of the limits to water use and leaving land that has important heritage value for First Australians and environmentally should be left unaffected by human development. Far too much damage has already been done and it must stop for the future of our environment and human survival.
To develop land for urbanisation that is on a flood plain is beyond ridiculous in the current climate crisis and the damage that has already been done. For the sake of further development the costs far outweigh any conceivable benefits.
The wall must not be raised as the damage that would result is more than irresponsible. The relevant EIS is poor representation of the real issues involved.

To whom it may concern,
to raise Warragamba Dam’s wall 17 metres so developers can build houses on low-lying floodplains in Western Sydney is unconscious and inconceivable.

Raising the dam wall will flood pristine wild rivers and important bushwalking areas west of Sydney.

If the dam wall is raised, more than 1,000 sites of immense cultural and historical significance in the beautiful Burragorang Valley — irreplaceable Indigenous cave art galleries and occupation and burial sites — will be drowned under metres of muddy water.
Houses in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley will not be protected by raising the Warragamba Dam wall, although it is the main reason the government gives to justify this destruction. Almost half of the flooding in the valley comes from waters that are not controlled by Warragamba Dam.

Upstream inundation would also destroy the mighty Kowmung River, 6,000 hectares of the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains National Park, and further endanger already threatened species like the regent honeyeater and the Camden white gum.

The NSW Government recently released an environmental impact statement (EIS) that downplays – and denies – the environmental and cultural damage this project will cause.

The impact assessment was heavily condemned by several agencies:
• The National Parks and Wildlife Service said it failed to address impacts on species and ecological communities affected by last year’s bushfires.
• Heritage NSW said the EIS failed to properly consider cultural heritage values or adequately consult Traditional Owners.
• The Commonwealth Environment Department said the evaluation failed to consider impacts on iconic species like the platypus, and told the NSW Government to redo the entire heritage assessment.

It’s hard to believe that the NSW Government refused to redo this work and has carried out no further field studies since receiving those severe criticisms.

This is the most significant threat to Australia’s World Heritage in decades. There are few times in Australian history when Governments have undertaken such callous attacks on protected areas.
Please protect nature as if it was a Heritage Building or church. Once destroyed, it cannot be repaired to its original state.

I do not support the raising of Warragamba Dam because Indigenous cultural heritage will be damaged or destroyed. Instead, flood mitigation strategies could include Councils considering more thoughtfully new construction areas, and the Dam could be better managed during times of high rainfall to avoid exacerbating downstream flooding. Australians have an obligation to consider their surroundings not just their money.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my concern and strong opposition to the NSW Government's plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
I have been fortunate to have hiked and swum in some of the areas that would be flooded should the dam wall be raised. Such an event to occur is ever more likely with the increasingly volatile weather and changing climate. It is our duty to protect what is left of pristine natural environments. The damage caused to the Kowmung River - a declared wild river with immense ecological values -, bushwalking tracks and nationally significant indeginous heritage, such as cave art, occupation and burial sites would be unrecoverable.
A flooding event is estimated to inundate approximately 6000ha of the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park. A park which is already under heavy ecological stress due to the 2019/20 bushfires. Yet another aspect that hasn't been taken into consideration in the environmental impact statement. It is also likely that UNESCO would withdraw the Park’s World Heritage status, which is the primary drawcard to attract tourism to the Blue Mountains, providing livelihood for a significant portion of its residents.
Furthermore, studies prove that a flooding event, such as the one experienced in March 2021 would not adequately protect settlements downstream of the dam. Nearly half of the water volume flooding these plains isn’t controlled by the Warragamba Dam. Consequently, the destruction caused by the heightened water levels behind the dam wall wouldn’t achieve its goal of protecting people and property.
Finally, I want to express my distress over the processes followed. The lack of consultation (e.g. with the traditional owners), the lack of independent peer review of their findings and questionable appointments disregarding conflicts of interest has completely undermined the credibility of the agencies involved and any output they produced.

To whom it may concern,
I previously lived in the Blue Mountains and am disappointed that there is an agenda to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall.
An environmental impact statement from a company with a shady track record that has been questioned by organisations such as National Parks and Wildlife Service, Heritage NSW and the Commonwealth Environment Department should not be used as justification for raising the Warragamba Dam wall to allow the spreading of Brick Venerial Disease through Hawkesbury / Nepean floodplain areas. I especially object to taxpayer's money being used for this purpose.
Here's a better solution - don't build houses in floodplains.

To whom it may concern,
I have not spent a lot of time walking through the Blue Mountains. However, when I have it has been abosultely beautiful.
As a World Heritage site, I am amazed that it can actually be allowed to be damaged. How long do Heritage sites last? 1 year, 5 years 20 years. What is the point of being a World Heritage site, if at anytime, oh, we don't need this anymore?
The area contains over 60 km wilderness rivers, over 5,000 hectares of National Parks. Over 1,000 hectares in the Heritage area. The dam will destroy the Kowmung River, the unique eucalyptus species, the flora and funa of endangered species.
I understand the local Traditional Owners have not been given consent for the proposal of the dam. I understand that they have over 1,500 cultrual heritage sites. Hasn't this country destroyed enough sites?
I'm not 100% sure of the figures. However, I am aware surveys have either not been done at all, or not anywhere near the levels that should have been done for the damage done after the bush fires. I watch the news and I have not seen what the economic benefits of the dam is.

To whom it may concern,
I reject the proposal to increase thes size of the dam.
Again, the Liberals is hell-bent on destroying more pristine bushland. This is World Heritage listed.
STOP now!

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of the Southern Highlands for 45 years. I am a teacher and have been very involved in Wilderness and Duke of Edinburgh walking/expeditioning programs with school students for 30 years. I have walked most of the track from Katoomba to Mittagong over the years. It is an ancient trail and song-line of the Gundungurra people. It crosses key pristine rivers like the Cox's and Kowmung which has 'wild river' status and has some of the most 'unspoilt' ad inaccessible and rugged sandstone country in NSW. This very ruggedness and inaccessibility has protected 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers; a number of Threatened Ecological Communities; the Camden White Gum; the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeaterand Sydney's last emu population until now.
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.
I would like the Minister to take into account the many failures of the EIS including no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits;only 27% of the impact area was surveyed for indigenous artifacts; no bush fire field surveys have been undertaken; threatened species field surveys were inadequate and expert advice was not sought; 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.
I oppose the dam as the benefits have not been proven and certainly is not worth the loss of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area in recognition of UNESCO's identification of it as having Outstanding Universal Value to the whole of mankind.
Please Minister look past the next election to generations ahead and consider the irreversible damage this inundation would cause to such invaluable natural and cultural areas so close to Sydney.

To whom it may concern'
I would like to be recognised as vigorously opposing the plan to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam.
Having walked and camped extensively in the area to be flooded I know that this land is a primeval, pristine and irreplaceable treasure.
Worse, raising the wall will encourage more people to settle on the flood plain, destroying prime agricultural land and exposing them to catastrophic floods which we are told will not be eliminated. Descriptions of floods from the early days of the colony are terifying, and will certainly be repeated. The book "The people of the river" by Grace Karskens gives graphic descriptions of floods.
We can't continue to concrete over our best agricultural land; humans need to eat.
This raising will be disastrous in so many ways that it must be stopped.

To whom it may concern,
It is our responsibility to look after the lands that we once invaded and took from the Native people and animals. PLEASE do not continue to destroy and degrade their homes, just to cater for extra people who don't care for the environment in which they live in the first place.

To whom it may concern,
This is a ridiculous solution to a problem which can be avoided by good planning. Please don't ignore the flood mitigation plans, the value of a World Heritage listed National Park, the Indigenous cultural sites and common sense in an attempt to appease the profiteering of developers.

To whom it may concern,
I write to object to the propsal to raise the wall of the Warragambah Dam.
Flooding the area behind this dam will mean the loss of incredible cultural and natural heritage sites and values.
It will not prevent flooding of houses a nearly half of the 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 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) released by the NSW Government and denies the environmental and cultural damage this project will cause, with the assessment having been criticised by peak Conservation and Cultural scientists.
How can the Government ignore the Indigenous Gundungurra community members' history and responsibility for this land and the sites held there.?
Reconciliation means respect for culture and meaningful consultation and inclusion in decison making around land top which people have belonging.
The reason much of the area is proclaimed as World Heritage and National Park is because of these very values.
The impact assessment was heavily condemned by several agencies:
• The National Parks and Wildlife Service said it failed to address impacts on species and ecological communities affected by last year’s bushfires.
• Heritage NSW said the EIS failed to properly consider cultural heritage values or adequately consult Traditional Owners.
• The Commonwealth Environment Department said the evaluation failed to consider impacts on iconic species like the platypus, and told the NSW Government to redo the entire heritage assessment.
With these comments in place, it seems ridiculous to continue with this proposal.
There are alternatives to raising the wall that have been put forward, I encourage you to listent to the science and the Traditional Owners, and to look at alternatives to this that actually would provide some protection for the downstream communities , whilst protecting our cultural and natural heritage.
Yours Sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
Hi I have lived in the Blue Mountains for ov er 20 years and as bushwalker and Landscape Photographer I ask you to please reconsider raising the Warragamba Dam wall,its much too precious an area to flood plus its world Heritage listed and contains so much of our first nations artefacts,drawings,and story telling information that is priceless and is a real asset to our nation,please dont be short sighted and look for profits by building on the flood plains further downstream,flood plains are just that ,flood plains and all rivers flood thats what they do in extreme weather.
Other rivers feed into that section of the Nepean -Hawkesbury river which are not controlled by the dam so no matter how high you build a wall it will still flood.
The EIS is flawed and doesnt look at the alternatives for flood mitigation,finally next time you look in the mirror think about your actions and what damage it will do when the wilderness areas are flooded,the first nations peoples cave drawings are wiped out,precious habittats of rare endangerd birds,platypus,wombats are destroyed,
All of these species once inhabited the savanah plains between Sydney and Penrith and since that bushland is now mostly houses these species retreated to the Blue Mountains Wilderness,please save it,there is an alternative,

To whom it may concern,
Please do not enlarge Warragamba dam. This will destroy too much vital habitat which needs to be preserved at this stage in Australia's extinction crisis!
For water security, please mandate rooftop water collection for ALL households! It's a no-brainer!
Likewise, using dams to generate electricity may be 'green' in that no carbon is released to our atmosphere, renewable energy is the way to go.
Thankyou for your consideration of my views.

I am a long-term resident of the Hawkesbury area. I was in one of the suburbs isolated from Sydney during last years floods for several days. I also run a small business in the heart of Windsor. I am well connected with the community through my neighbourhood, through a volunteering role, and am on local social media pages. As such, I am typical of the citizens that the proposed benefits of this project are directed towards. I am also a trained Civil/Structural Engineer and work with local flood risks, so I have a good understanding of the hydraulic and hydrologic aspects of the proposal as well as the risk versus reward of this proposal.

With the above local insights, I can advise that I have never come across any discussion amongst any locals, whether in the business community or in the wider local community, who have even raised the topic of the dam. There is simply no groundswell of demand from the local residents for the proposal. My personal summary of people’s attitudes to the flooding risk is that it is an accepted part of life. I am quite sure some quite enjoy the mild adventure, variety to life and community solidarity that flooding brings about.

Given the negligible community interest there is simply no warrant for the proposal based on community demand. Given this, the more severe consequences of a flood level approaching PMF could be more economically managed, or even reduced, in a way that is acceptable to the community, and without the collateral damage to the environment and aboriginal heritage, by:

• Better education of the risks and consequences of floods, particularly those above the 1% ARI.
• Better flood forecasting and warning systems.
• Implementing development controls to limit risk from future developments which are in the floodable zone but which are above the 1% AEP level.
• Purchasing most at risk properties.
• Improving transport links and flood evacuation routes in what is an already a poorly served community.

To whom it may concern,
What is going on? Do not go ahead with this ill conceived project.
• 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.
• 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 urge you to consider the above carefully.

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned about the NSW Goverment's EIS on the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for reasons including:
the destruction of pristine Kowmung River declared a 'Wild River' and protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
the consequent damage to natural and cultural values of the Blue Mountains which is a World Heritage area;
the impact on threatened species and ecological communities and the incompletion of associated field surveys;
the lack of post-bushfire field surveys;
the significant number (10ver 1541) cultural heritage sites inundated by the Dam proposal;
the lack of meaningful consultation with Gundungurra Traditional Owners;
the lack of modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising.
Alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall have not been comprehensively assessed in the EIS, particularly the cost benefit anaylsis which must include the natural/cultural/heritage components of the area as well as the ecosystem services that are provided at present and will be lost with the Dam wall.
As a result, the integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

To whom it may concern,
I've been worried about the plan to interfere with the wall of Warragamba Dam. Seems ill-considered from inception. Firstly the integrity of the srructure is weakened, the problem of flooding requires a system plan across the entire catchment that should include restoration of wetland sponges within theurban context to both reduce flood peaksand relieve urban heat. Permitting residential development on a flood plain is an unconscionable error raising the dam wall does not address. Adding to this insult to our collective intelligence the NSW Government's recently released environmental impact statement (EIS) shows disregard for the people of the Wollondily LGA, who are most directly affected by this exercise in engineering hubris. I support the Wollondilly Coluncil's objection to the development based on their concerns for the environmental and cultural damage this project will cause.

To whom it may concern,
Personally, I do not have a connection to the land affected by this proposal. However - with respect to the Warragamba dam I have concerns as an Australian and as an ordinary member of Birdlife Australia.
As an Australian senior, and reflecting on my childhood, I can see with my own eyes, how much land and nature that we have lost to this country's relentless quest for real estate development. It is ruthless and relentless and it is our natural environment that is suffering. This can only be seen with old eyes - eyes that can recall what was there 50 - 60 years ago and compare the then to now.
It is unbeliveably sad. And if this goes ahead, it will be, according to experts, possibly the end of the Regent Honeyeater. We have threatened birds, plants, reptiles, animals, fish, etc and the list just goes on and on.
One only has to Google this development and many others to find a disturbing trend - Government conveniently ignoring facts and research to push ahead regardless.
There is ample evidence of seemingly valid and important concerns expressed by other groups including First Nation Groups, Birdlife Australia, specialist environmental groups and so on.
One wonders, what is behind this and who? Where is the transparency, the in-depth consultation, the concern for groups that claim to have been not fully included and so on.
There are less damaging alternatives to this development put forward and in all seriousness, these should be fully explored and adopted.
My voice in this matter is tiny but if you listen there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of us who detest spin and who are very aware of decision makers conveniently massaging messages to jump hurdles that might otherwise not support what the Government decided upon at the beginning.
I believe that the groups opposing this development are far more credible than the proponents and therefore, on their advice I oppose this development in it's current form.

To whom it may concern,
I am so concerned about the NSW Gov's plan to raise Warragamba Dam wall and the recent (Environmental) Impact Assessment that fails to acknowledge its very purpose. Possibly because it was carried out by an engineering company when one would expect ecologists to be involved??
And this after such devastating bush fires in the region.
Its unconsciable that Gov thinks its ok to misuse its self-granted power to push through infrastructure, against its own department recommendations, that put so much at risk.
I have walked in and visited much of the Greater Blue Mtns World Heritage Area and it is so PRECIOUS!!!
The impacts of raising the dam wall are so many and if we are not considering the ENVIRONMENTAL impacts now, when will we be? When there's nothing left?
How can Australia expect to uphold World Heritage status of the Greater Blue Mtns with further loss of the natural valleys and rivers as they get flooded? What about how the world further perceives us, if not already as a population upon whom the most beautiful landscape and wildlife is being trashed and wasted?
NSW Gov needs to be pursuing other methods of flood mitigation and meeting the water needs of its infinitely growing Sydney megatropolis.
Come on NSW Gov!!! Have the guts to show the world that you really do care about a future for our natural world. Stop this build at all costs mindset....be innovative!!