Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
The Blue Mountains area kindled my love of the natural world. As a child our family spent many holidays in the area, learning about the unique Australian flora and fauna of that dramatic landscape. 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 and state-sanctioned environmental vandalism.
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. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for cultural heritage.
It beggars belief that not only have no post-bushfire field surveys been undertaken following the devastation of 81% of the World Heritage Area, but that the initial threatened species surveys were substantially less than guideline requirements. I have personally witnessed the dreadful silence of fire-affected bushland, my local area having been devastated by the Clear Range Fire in February 2020 that also wiped out about 80% of ACT’s Namadgi National Park. It is a deeply soul-destroying experience. There is no doubt that unique and threatened communities are even more at risk following those devastating fires. Before the fire it was thought there could be as few as 200 of the Regent Honeyeater remaining. Many forage and breed in habitat that the draft EIS found would likely be destroyed by the dam-raising project and up to half the remaining population could be impacted. That population may now be much smaller, but no-one knows!
Warragamba Dam is an urban water supply dam for Sydney. As such it performs its function best when held at or near capacity. On the other hand, a flood control dam operates best when kept well below capacity to enable maximum catch, and a managed release of, flood waters. The two types of operation work against each other. With Sydney’s population continuing to increase it is hard to believe that the extra capacity won’t be used for storage to supply that population.
A report by hydrologists from WorleyParsons, WRM and Water Matters International, on the Brisbane flood of January 2011 noted:
“The greater the volume … of an incoming flood, the less effective are dams at mitigating flood flows, and the more constrained management options (releases) become for dam operators.”
Additionally, in the case of the Sydney floodplain, an average of 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. So, no matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
Climate change is bringing more extreme weather events more often. A raised dam wall under these evolving conditions is not the answer. The EIS did not comprehensively assess any alternative options and did not take into account the economic benefits of those options as an offset to the initial cost of implementation.
The EIS is a flawed and inadequate document and any plan to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall based on that document would be a travesty of major proportions. The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Advisory Committee has said in a report to the NSW Environment Minister:
“The proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall will cause irreparable damage to these extraordinary wilderness areas and wild rivers, protected under legislation.”
“There is likely to be a negative impact on aesthetic values from various lookouts including McMahons and possibly Echo Point, accessed by millions of visitors annually. These values are a significant element of the regional tourism economy.”
The NSW Environment Minister is ignoring the advice of government departments, Australia’s leading scientific experts, an international world heritage body, and now her own scientific committee - which she herself appointed.
This disastrous proposal must not proceed.

To whom it may concern,
• 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.
•
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.

To whom it may concern,

I wish to request formally that you reject the proposal to raise the dam wall and flood further sections of the wilderness and river.
Flooding this wilderness would further destroy the many indigenous heritage sites that are present in the area essentially destroying the history of one of the longest surviving cultures on our planet.
The flora and fauna of the environment is held on a delicate balance and the impact of changing the ecosystem further will have far reaching ramifications.
Flood plains are not meant to be developed - in fact wetland ecosystems are the lungs of our earth and a significant carbon sink. In this day and age we need to protect the environment we have and not further destroy it!
please make the right decision for our environment and children and not a decision for short term economic gain.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam as per the recently released EIS.
If the Warragamba Dam wall raising proposal were to go ahead, it will endanger 5700 hectares of UNESCO World Heritage-listed national park and flood 1541 cultural sites of the Gundungarra people in the Burragorang Valley, some dating back thousands of years.

To whom it may concern,
Dear Sir/Madam,
As a resident of Sydney who enjoys accessing the Blue Mountains and other parks for recreation, I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. I am concerned that this will cause irreparable damage to the little native vegetation areas accessible in this state, and destroy significant cultural sites of the local Indigenous community. Scientific research has confirmed the negative social and environmental impacts of dams and I believe there are more cost-effective and less destructive means of mitigating the risk of flooding in the Hawkesbury and Nepean valley.
It's time we got smarter in NSW and developed more environmentally and culturally sensitive and sustainable means of supporting our communities.
It's not too late to demonstrate the NSW government is open to hear from and respond to its residents and Traditional Owners, rather than the usual 'vested interests'.

To whom it may concern,
This was posted all over Facebook today.
The new owner of the historic Richmond Post Office (RPO) has gone on a buying spree, splashing millions of dollars on multiple properties in Richmond and Kurrajong, in just the past 18 months.
45 year old, Steve Guo-Ting He, has spent close to $10 million purchasing at least seven properties consisting of a mix of undeveloped residential properties, the RPO and two new properties purchased this year in the centre of Richmond.
Local property developer, Matthew Bennett has described Mr He as his business partner, however, Mr He is not involved in BCM Property. Mr He has purchased the properties through his companies Venture 101 Pty Ltd and Hambledon Estates Pty Ltd.
Some of the properties were purchased from the Bennett family.
When businessman Peter Higgins, sold the RPO in 2020 for close to $2 mln, Matthew Bennett’s BCM property Facebook page proclaimed:
“WE BOUGHT THE POST OFFICE”.
“After dreaming of buying the State heritage Listed Richmond Post Office (RPO) for over 25 years, Matthew officially took the keys TODAY!,” BCM said.
However, publicly available records show that Matthew Bennett, domestic partner of local Liberal Councillor and Federal political aspirant, Sarah Richards did not buy the RPO. The historic building was purchased by Mr He’s wholly-owned company, Ventures 101 Pty Ltd.
Mr He has also shown an interest in residential development in the Hawkesbury. Documents lodged with council in March 2021, show that Mr He’s Hambledon Estate paid for the Pre-Lodgement Application for the $13 million Tallowood, stage two development in Kurrajong.
The proposal was to turn semi-rural residential properties into a 19 dwelling, development for over 55’s.
The proposed redevelopment concerned two properties in Vincent’s Road, Kurrajong. One of the properties, 7 Vincent’s Road is owned by Mr He, however the Pre-Lodgement Application names Matthew Bennett’s father, Kenneth as the owner of the property even though Mr He had purchased it from the Bennetts seven months earlier.
The 4 bedroom, 2 bathroom property on 4148m2 of land, was purchased for $850,000 via private treaty in 2020.
According to the same Application the owner of the other property, 21 Vincent’s Road is owned by Matthew’s mother, Pamela Bennett.
It is unclear why Steve He is not listed as the owner of the property in the Pre-Lodgement Application which is required under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The document was lodged by a planning company in Bowral, Sutherland & Associates Planning. It is not known whether council was provided with any additional documents to establish the true ownership of the property.
Sutherland & Associates Planning, stated on the document they did not know of any person who has financial interest in the application who has made a political donation or gift in the last two years. It is not known whether Mr He has made a donation to any political parties.
Two months after lodging the Pre-Application document, Steve wrote four letters to council in support of the development, one for each of the four properties he owns in the area, including 7 Vincents Road.
“We inspected the plans and fully support this proposal,” he wrote on each letter.
Matthew Bennett’s sister, using her former married Linda McMahon, also made a submission in favor of the development.
Mr He, is also believed to be funding a very public restoration of the RPO behind the bannering façade of Matthew Bennett’s, BCM Property. Sarah Richards has said she was part of the restoration team for the project.
Both Hambledon Estates and another of Mr He’s companies 3E Australia, list the RPO as their business address. According to its website, 3E Australia is an Australian-based trading company which helps businesses source furniture and homewares from China. A google search also describes the business as a gift wrap store in Auburn.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall since it will irrevocably damage the environment. I have enjoyed walking in the Blue Mountains since the 1970s and want the area to remain as it is for my son and future generations to enjoy.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam.
This will affect, by flooding, 6000 hectares of forest and habitat near the Kowmung River. We do not have enough pristine ecosytems in the Sydney basin to be able to destroy such valuable habitat.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my opposition and concern with the NSW Government's plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

I personally have been fortunate enough to have bushwalked, camped, swum and fished through areas that would be flooded and am distressed at the damage this flooding would cause.

Raising the dam wall will flood wild rivers and other important bushwalking areas. Indigenous sites of immense cultural, national and historical significance in the Burragorang Valley including cave art, occupation and burial sites, will drown beneath silty waters.

Raising the dam wall would also inundate the Lower sections of Kowmung River, a NSW state declared Wild River with pristine ecological values, 6,000 hectares of the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains National Parks, and further endanger already threatened species.

The NSW Government says this scheme will protect houses in the Hawkesbury-Nepean valley from flooding. Yet, almost half of the flooding in the valley comes from waters that are not controlled by the Warragamba Dam.

The proposed raising of the dam wall will not mitigate flood damage. It may increase government revenue from inappropriate development. But this potential development is not viable, insurable or sustainable.

Numerous NSW government agencies including the National Parks and Wildlife Service and Heritage NSW said it failed to address the way raising the dam wall will impact on species and ecological communities affected and that it did not properly consider cultural heritage values of the surveyed area, nor was there sufficient consultation with traditional owners.
The Commonwealth Environment Department said the evaluation failed to consider how raising the dam wall would impact on iconic species like the platypus.
I think it is important to understand that raising the dam wall and flooding vast areas of magnificent bushland is not like letting fresh bathwater out of a bath, rather what is left behind is a silt and debris covered landscape that will never recover when the waters recede.

To whom it may concern,
Our environment is more important than ever. Please preserve it and find more sustainable solutions to solve the issues at hand.

Please reassure me that no individual, company or business will benefit from raising the dam level.
Will you do the right thing by the people of NSW?

To whom it may concern,
The NSW Governfment's proposed scheme to raise the Warragamba Dam wall so developers can build more houses on western Sydney floodplains is very alarming.

Damage to natural and cultural values caused by the project would be a clear breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

There are so many things wrong with this project I don't know where to begin, but I'm sure the Dept and the Minister have already been advised from experts as to the reckless endangerment of the wilderness rivers, 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 heactares of the Greater Blue Mountains World heritage Area would be inundated by the short sighted project.

The assessment undermines the legislation which is the foundation of environmental protection in NSW. Approval of the project would set a dangerious precedent for Australia's World Heritage and National Park protections.

The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project has an extremely poor record of working with Indigenous people. It has previously been banned from working on World Bank projects in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. So why on Earth would the Berejilklian/Perrottet governments consider this company suitable to assess such a drastic environmental impact statement, unless they are seeking a desirable outcome for their developer mates?

No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the assessment. The Former NSW SES Dep. Commissioner and flood expert, Chas Keys, has said the project is "flawed and should not be proceed with".

As a Blue Mountains resident I am extremely saddened by the prospect of this unique and beautiful heritage listed area being destroyed for short term gain. A devastating bushfire went through Blackheath less than 2 years ago after a prolonged drought which no post-bushfire field surveys for threatened species have been undertaken which is outrageous. Governments are supposed to seek solutions to devastating environmental events like fires and flood, its your job.

On the eve of the COP26 in Glasgow, I would have thought the State Government would have made it a priority to protect the nation's precious natural bushlands, wildlife and waterways for future generations.

I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for all the reasons stated (and more) and urge the Minister to reconsider such a drastic plan as no good will come of it, except to devastate our pristine wilderness, which belongs to future generations, not the LNP and their developer supporters.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you to express my particular concern about the impact of raising the Warragamba Dam wall on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
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.
The Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal to proceed.
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.
Given that:
• 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 reconsider raising the Warragamba Dam and instead investigate the alternative options proposed in order to preserve priceless Aboriginal Cultural Heritage for future generations to experience.

Dear Major Projects Reviewer,
I don't profess to know any of the scientific problems which have been raised so well by other organisations, such as the Colong Foundation, but I can read both this EIS and the objector's documents and be dismayed. It would appear that this project is yet another small part of the destruction of our much needed wilderness areas which we seem to take for granted. These wilderness areas, now signified by the World Heritage label, are so important to us all and yet it would appear that the thrust of this project will overpower the silent environment. The bush can never be as vocal as people who are hungry for money, power or sheer selfishness.
I am a long time bushwalker who has for many years walked and camped along the Kowmung River and followed the pioneering pathways of our father of National Parks, Miles Dunphy. He would rightly have been shocked and disgusted by these plans to destroy his beloved bush, even if it is only during inundation periods. The benefits of this proposal, in my view, do not in any way match our need to preserve such areas so close to Sydney.
I can just imagine what it will be like to be walking in one of the areas which have suffered after a major flood and the inundation has destroyed swathes of the bushland; the loss of endangered species, the loss of our first nation's (and our) heritage and the scarring effect of such a flood will be very hard to bear. What am I going to tell the next generation of our young who want to explore these areas and be in touch with nature? That we wanted to stop flooding of our own built environment on the plains of Sydney so we destroyed our naturally built environment to do this!
We all agreed in the 50's and 60's to flood the beautiful Burragorang Valley for the sake of Sydney's water needs. At the time we all believed in such projects and hailed our governments for planning so wisely. But we didn't understand the cost of this to our lives. Our spiritual lives were damaged forever but we, on balance, accepted such destruction for our immediate needs. This development does not have such a balance; the protection of houses already built on floodplains is not a good enough reason to be the killer of nature that we will be if this goes ahead. It is not all about us! We must look after this for now and well into the future. The First Nations of this country knew much more than we did about the need to protect our land because doing this also protects us.
Let us finally learn from one of the oldest surviving peoples in the world and not do this to ourselves and 'our backyard'.
I object passionately to this proposal.

To whom it may concern,
I write to express my dismay and confusion that the NSW Government is still forging ahead with its reckless and unnecessary Plan to raise the height of Warragamba Dam, thus flooding World Heritage sites within the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Even your own Governement departments are opposed to this plan.
Admit that this is a seriously flawed scheme that is not needed.

Regarding the Warragamba Dam Raising Project,
I am adamantly opposed to the raising of the Dam wall as I have seen the beauty and heritage of this area and its importance in the ecosystem. I am concerned about the poor evaluation of the site and cultural sites and the inadequate consultation with the Traditional Owners.

There are obvious alternatives to raising the 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.
Floodplains play an important role in the ecosystem and should not be developed further. Climate change will further seriously challenge any development plans.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived and worked in the Blue Mountains since 1995, first in Winmalee and since 2001 in Bullaburra. I love the area and consider myself extremely fortunate to be able to live within the boundaries of a National Park. I have a Master of Education (Social Ecology) degree. I have come to understand and greatly appreciate the wisdoms of our First Nations People in caring for the land.
I totally oppose the raising of the dam wall for the following reasons:
1. After the 2019/20 bushfires devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains heritage area, we cannot afford to cause more harm to the area. The flooding caused by raising the dam wall will cause untold destruction to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
2. The Commonwealth Government has estimated that at least 1,500 Indigenous cultural heritage sites would be inundated by a raised dam wall. This is culturally unacceptable to all Australians trying to share our stories and all learn to live together, no matter where we are from.
3. I am not satisfied that the assessments for Aboriginal cultural heritage or the environmental impact have been carried out thoroughly enough nor with due diligence.
4. No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the assessment.
5. The NSW Government intention to build new residences on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain goes against legal trends and case law. I refer you to (England, 2019) which highlights cases where development was refused outright, despite affordable risk management measures. It goes against objectives outlined as best practice in: Commonwealth of Australia, Managing the Floodplain: A Guide to Best Practice in Flood Risk Management in Australia (AEM Handbook No 7, Commonwealth of Australia 2017).
6. Many alternatives to raising the dam wall exist, including building flood evacuation roads, lowering the full supply of the present dam and reducing floodplain development.

England, P. (2019). Trends in the Evolution of Floodplain Management in Australia: Risk Assessment, Precautionary and Robust Decision-Making. Journal of Environmental Law, 31(2), 315-341. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqz012

To whom it may concern,
I am re-writing this letter in opposition to the dam raising project because it did not include the necessary statements (now included below).

I vehemently oppose the raising of the dam wall due to the long term damage such a move will have on the World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park and the life long scarring to the land that such a development will have on the environment.
Even the flawed studies that have been completed clearly show that threatened and endagered spiecies will be lost, aboriginal heritage & land of cultural significance will be detroyed and the pristine environment of the lower Coxes & Kowmung Rivers forever damaged.
It is a testament to our great country that we can have a world heritage national park right on the doorsteps to the largest city in the country and the raising of the dam wall & subsequent detrsuction of the environment will place this rating in serious jeopardy with UNESCO
STOP THE RAISING OF THE DAM WALL AND PROTECT OUR EVER DWINDLING ENVIRONMENT

To whom it may concern,
I wish to object to the Warragamba Dam Raising Project.
I live in the Blue Mountains and I spend much of my spare time working voluntarily to protect our amazing environmental and cultural heritage through bushcare, tree planting for endangered species such as the Regent Honeyeater and involvement in organisations that support local Aboriginal justice issues. I also walk in the Blue Mountains World Heritage area and believe that it must be properly protected.
I believe that the raising of the dam wall is unnecessary, and will result in too many adverse outcomes for our endangered species and environments and for Gundungurra cultural heritage sites.
There are many alternative options to protect existing floodplain communities and the dam wall raising would not even protect these communities from the average 45% of floodwaters that come from areas outside of the Warragamba Dam catchment anyway.
The EIS process has been fatally flawed with, for example, only 27% of the impact area assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and Threatened Species surveys being substantially less than guideline requirements. There is no clear reason shown as to why this dam wall raising would be a positive use of NSW state funds, only clear negative outcomes for our World Heritage National Park, our endangered species and our Aboriginal Cutural Heritage.

Hello Although i do not live in NSW what happens there is followed by the other states .. we do not need new dams or heightened dams .. we need to use the water more wisely .. the govt should spend their monies in invention of better technology, hardware and education. This is an easy way out for the govt .. Another reason not to raise the wall is the people animals and habitat that will have to move or be inundated .. wildlife have enough issues without having to find new digs that are habitated by others .. usually when made to move most animals and birds die. The people that live upriver where are they to go. Many are generations old living on the same land . They too must be considered .. what right does the govt have to move them off their land. I do think that upbuilding the dam wall is a bad idea all round. Surely the think tanks of govt can come up with something else other than the quickest way.

To whom it may concern,
I am alarmed at the suggestion that the Wagamama Dan wall might be raised.
I spent a lot of my childhood at Wallacia, staying with my grandmother, and have an uncle who worked on the dam. I'm shocked to think that so much of this beautiful area could be flooded, especially considering all the sites so important to indigenous people. Not that they ever get much serious consideration. And also, precious habitat for rare and threatened species like the Regent Honeyeater, that so many people are working hard to keep of the extinct list.
Please don't do this. There must be some balance between uncontrolled population growth and the natural environment or there will be nothing left.