Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I think that this is an extremely poor decision on the government's part.
The damage to the environment of some of our protected species should not be dismissed so readily for the benefit of a few developers and their profit margins.
I am hoping that you reconsider this decision immediately and reverse it,

To whom it may concern,
As a Gundungurra man, I am concerned by the proposal and its destruction of many priceless cultural heritage sites. Our Country is sacred and unceded - my elders have not given consent to this project and will not. It has no right to continue. These rivers are important to the stories of our creation in the dreaming - they're protected by world heritage because of their significance. This culture is part of who we are and our identity - it's priceless. We don't need a bigger wall. Dams don't make water and they don't stop floods as we've seen these last few years. Please reconsider.

To whom it may concern,
It seems that any developers that are willing to donate to political parties can present their agenda and then get favourable outcomes.
To the ordinary citizen this looks like, sounds like and smells like corrupt behaviour. Prove me wrong.
Across the road from me is a development where the DA states that mature trees will be led at the developers discretion. What exactly is developers discretion? Maximise profits is the answer and no mature trees are left.
The same thing is happening with this Dam proposal (pun intended). Your job is to represent the constituents, we pay your salary with our hard work and taxes. We deserve better.
Your time is short and voting is nigh. We are tired of this rubbish and will see you gone.
Do your role properly with appropriate diligence or see ya!!

• 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.
• Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given consent for the proposal to proceed.
• World Heritage obligations would be breached.
• Habitats for critically endangered species would be threatened.
• Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall require further consideration and investigation.

To whom it may concern,
My position is very simple the decision to raise the dam wall appears to be governed primarily by financial interests - maybe corrupt interests. Politicians who make these decisions need to be aware that they took an oath to serve the people NOT their own interests. Is there any objective need to raise the dam wall? Or are the developers offering incentives to sway the decision?

To whom it may concern,
Please make that our native fauna and flora are the first priority at all times

To whom it may concern,
I am a retired civil engineer with an interest in saving the planet for the benefit of my grandchildren. I wish to register my objection to this proposal on a very basic level. Along with all the other problems including…
• Completely inadequate EIS
• Unavoidable destruction of world heritage and cultural sites
• The lack of informed consent from the traditional owners
• Failure to consider alternatives to raising the wall
• Indifference to the risks of building on the flood plain
…the proposal WILL NOT WORK!
Almost half the floodwaters that pose the threat to the Hawkesbury-Nepean plain come from sources other than the Warragamba dam catchment. To continue to allow building on the flood plain is grossly irresponsible. To provide the false impression that this proposal will prevent flooding is verging on criminal neglect.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raisng of the dam wall .
I have two personal reasons for this. The first is that I am a birdwatcher and have been closely involved in the Regent Honeyeater Recovery Project in the Capertee Valley. These birds have decreased in numbers dramatically in the last 20 years and perhaps only 350 are left in the wild. They have known nesting sites in the area that is likely to be flooded by this proposal. Saving this iconoc beautiful bird from extinction is very challenging and loss of known critical habitat should not be contemplated.
Secondly, I have walked down the Cowmung River. This is a truly stunning wilderness area and the plan will flood parts of this river and destroy its wilderness characteristics and stunning beauty.
I also understrand from what I have read of the plan that it will also threaten other endangered species of plants and animals. Furthermore I understand that there are alternative better and cheaper ways of preventing damage from flooding downstream in the flood plain areas that probably should never have been allowed to be developed in the first place.

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. World Heritage and cultural heritage sites are threatened and this is totally unacceptable. It is clear that there has been a systemic failure of the EIS and this puts into jeopardy our World HERITAGE, Indigenous cultural sites and their values as well there is no regard at all by the powers that be of free, informed and prior consent. This dam raising is totally unacceptable and must not be allowed to progress as there are other options that have avoidable impacts. Cumulative impacts have not been contemplated, nor has climate change been factored in. I say an emphatic no to this proposal! The impacts are cumulative and I do NOT accept that the environment, World Heritage, Indigenous culture, a total disregard for consent has any kind of license to proceed.

To whom it may concern,
I am making this submission as I have been following this issue since it was first raised after the recent devastating floods.
There are many reasons why I am opposed to raising the height of the Warragamba Dam. The main point that I would like to make is the huge environmental impact that this decision will have, and the need for Australians to protect our environmental heritage to protect and sustain our native fauna and flora that have also suffered from devastating bushfires.
Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken. Native fauna help protect our bushland, and we should be encouraging growth of this habitat, not flooding it.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
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. Our Australian governments have a shocking reputation of destroying cultural and environmental heritage, and changing heritage listings to suit their own agenda.
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.
Warragamba Dam was at all time high levels when the flooding occurred. There was no considered option to lower the level of the 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. Also limiting development in floodplain areas would mitigate the risk.
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.
Please consider my opposition to the Warragamba Dam wall raising proposal.

To whom it may concern,
I gave reviewed the facts and it's clear that this proposal will result in further destruction of our environment, puts threatened species closer to extinction and it's clear that the government is not listening to the community.
Please do the right thing and object this proposed destruction of what we love!!! After all, the government is there to listen and act on behalf of its voters and community!!!

To whom it may concern,
I object strongly to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall, and thereby flood bushwalking and nature preserves, in order to enrich private developers building Sydney' worsening sprawl. The EOI drastically understates the costs to these important environmental and public assets, not to mention the damage to large numbers of significant Aboriginal cultural sites.
The present government has given far too much to greedy irresponsible (and often criminal) developers; it is time to demonstrate that it can draw a line by not flooding the Blue Mountains!

To whom it may concern,

The EIS has not been properly carried out and the project should not be approved on the basis of it. In particular study of bushfire impacts was not undertaken and threatened species impact studies were negligible. Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment was negligible.
The assessments were in a word dodgy.
The NSW Government cannot afford more dodgy approvals of projects.

To whom it may concern,
I am unconvinced by the argument for raising the dam wall. I concur with the Commonwealth Government that the EIS needs to be Re-done.
Even before the catastrophic bushfires NSW needed to do more to protect wildlife habitat and Indigenous cultural artefacts. Since then, the obligation to be a guardian not a destroyer has increased enormously.
Please consider the legacy you wish to leave and the very strong desire of Australian citizens to value and protect our unique land and its' wild inhabitants.

I oppose the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall and the ramifications it will have for the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
I am worried about habitat destruction of Koalas, Platypus, Emus and Regent Honeyeaters. We have already destroyed so much of the beautiful bushland in Sydney's west and I really don't want to have more destroyed just for the sake of a few more houses.
There are alternatives to raising the dam wall and these should be used rather than choosing the cheaper and simpler option.
I call upon the NSW Government to reject the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall and find another solution.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing on behalf of my whole family of 3 generations, who have been regular walkers in the Blue Mountains.Also, as a scout leader, I regularly led walks in the World Heritage Area and am devastated that World Heritage status is not sufficient to protect this area against proposed flooding.
on average, 45% of floodwaters come from ouside the Warragamba Dam catchment area.
Following the fierce bushfires in 2019 there should have been a new environment impact survey,to reflect the current state of the biodiversity which needs time to recover.
I strongly oppose the raising of the dam wall and the inundation of our beautiful environment and the current and future biodiversity which it supports.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose any raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Sydney's potential future flood mitigation issues should be PREVENTED simply by NOT expanding Sydney's urban sprawl into the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain.
Greater Sydney and the NSW Government should face their responsibilities and stand up to the pressure of developers eager to get access to land which is and will remain unsuitable for urban development. Floodplains are for floods. Urban development on the floodplain will put human lives at risk, and the flood mitigation impact of raising the Warragamba wall will have only a minor effect on Hawkesbury-Nepean floods. If the proposal goes ahead, the current NSW Government will be known as the bunch of duffers who bowed to property developers at the expense of the lives of those who elected them.
Sydney's expansion and the property development industry should be accommodated in other ways that honour the Australian community's well documented priorities in regard to protecting our small and diminishing World Heritage estate. They should not be given priority over community consensus to protect the last of the wilderness in the Sydney Basin.
Sydney's water supply issues should be addressed through means other than increasing storage at the further expense of World Heritage areas in the Blue Mountains. These other means should include efficiency measures, storm water re-use, water recycling, and further desalination of seawater.
I am from Sydney and have spent much time in the Blue Mountains National Park in the regions that would be affected by a raised dam wall at Warragamba. The region has been encroached upon enough. The NSW govt should not dare to give itself the unilateral right to threaten and damage an area that the Australian community has long agreed should be protected.

To whom it may concern,
I write asking you to reconsider raising the walls of Warragamba Dam.
The State Government's environmental reputation is already in tatters. Developments in the Western Suburbs do not pre-plan to take into account the effects of rising temperatures in the coming decades due to climate change - which is likely go lead to a lot of issues down the track.
The plan to build developments on flood plains is short-sighted and ill-planned and raising the walls of the Warragamba Dam in an effort to mitigate flooding there is not only ineffectual; but will damage existing natural areas and ecosystems.
Please be wiser in your decisions, look to the future, and try to avoid continued damage to the remaining natural environments that we have in NSW.

To whom it may concern,
I feel warragamba dam should stay as it is, not raising the wall to suit devolopers building near it for corporate greed.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly object to the raising of Warragamba Dam on the grounds of ecological and indigeous cultural heritage values. The area that will be subject to (temporary) inundation represents a large part of the World Hertitage listed area, and Gundungarra Traditional Owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal. In addition, the project allows for significant 'project creep' in terms of building additional residential dwellings on the floodplain area and the permanent larger storage of water volumes. This objective should be removed from the 9 point proposal, and replaced with modifying Warragamba Dam for more flexible release options of floodwaters, by building diversion structures below the dam.