Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
Iam appalled at the NSW Government's plan to raise the height of Warragamba Dam despite reports of the environmental damage this will cause and the irreparable damage it will also do to aboriginal sacred sites, in order to build yet more housing on the Hawkesbury flood plain. People living there are already at risk, so it beggars belief that the government wants to add to the problem in the name of commerce.
I am doubly appalled at the Government's interference in the original environmental report in order to lessen the effect of raising the height of the dam & the superficial consultation with aboriginal custodians about the impact on their cultural heritage.
There are other options to raising the dam wall which will help protect those already living on the flood plain. It is to be hoped that the government will pursue these other options and leave Warragamba Dam wall intact.

To whom it may concern,
As a father concerned about the future of our planet and someone who respects Infigenous knowledge, I am greatly disturbed to hear of the proposal to increase the height of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Of greatest concern is the NSW Government's decision to ignore Indigenous opinions and environmental reports that did not agree with the proposal.
Australia is behind the eight ball, in terms of environmentally protective initiatives. This is recognised by most overseas governments. The NSW Government has the opportunity to break this pattern and begin to show the world that it will protect rather than pillage the environment.
I have visited this beautiful part of NSW. I would like to think that this privilege will also be available to other children and adults in the future.

Please find an environmentally protective solution to this issue.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the blue mountains for 20+ years and was personally proud when it was declared a world heritage area. I understand Sydney needs water as the population grows but I think we need to educate people how to respect water like they do overseas where water is less plentiful rather than build a damn wall in the world heritage area .I personally think it also has a second issue for re zoning flood plain areas so they can be built on .This is not flood mitigation which as I understand is the purpose of raising the wall.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall. I have been a resident of the blue mountains since 1986 and believe I live in a very unique environment. I would like to see it protected not ruined.
The raising of the dam wall will destroy large parts of the World Heritage wilderness and also destroy habitat for endengered species such as the Regent Honey Eater. Koala habitat and Emu habitat will also be destroyed.
My understanding is that some 1500 indigenous cultural sites will also go under water. We have walked all over these people since we arrived and we still want to continue to be disrespectful as we go forward with progress that is built on our greed.
We should reduce the number of people living in a flood plane. We are selling them land that will at some point be flooded. Include a proper system to evacuate these people when you offer them land in zones that have inherent danger assocaited with them. Damming one river will not stop flooding. You are selling people land where they could die. This whole proposal is being driven by greedy developers.
An alternative solution is to build another desalination plant and use recycling of water. I understand this would solve the water issues for less money. If we are honest people are currently drinking recycled sewage even if they don't know.

To whom it may concern,
I am very concerned about the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba dam in order to mitigate flood levels.

That significant development has already been allowed on the floodplains is a disgrace - similar to councils allowing building on sand dunes. To damage the environment further in an attempt to protect buildings that should never have been built in the first place is criminal. Rather than paying for the environmental offsets which will be required if the dam wall is raised (and for which the minister is trying to avoid full and proper responsibility), money should be provided to help residents relocate to higher ground.

Raising the dam wall will result in significant damage to thousands of hectares of unique World Heritage bushland. Periods of high rainfall will inundate areas for over two weeks, resulting in permanent damage to both flora and fauna. In the Environmental Impact Statement, the threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements, giving a false impression.

There will be also further damage to aboriginal sacred sites and relics which are important in preserving our indigenous citizens' spiritual and emotional health. I notice that SMEC Engineering undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project. They have a history of abusing indigenous rights, and only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage. One can only wonder if they were chosen because any reputable firm would recommend against the project because of the damage it would cause.
Furthermore, there is no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the raising of the dam wall outlined in the EIS. Not giving the data on which such claims are based raises suspicions about their reliability.
Today there have been revelations in the current ICAC investigation which show that politicians have overruled the advice of their own departmental staff in approving projects of little merit in order to please constituents and gain re-election. It underlines the corrupt nature of much which goes on in government. This EIS has obviously been commissioned to be carried out in a very sloppy and biased manner so that politicians can claim that it supports their case to raise the dam wall. The future of our unique environmental and indigenous heritage is at stake here, however. Will our legacy to our grandchildren be the devastation of what makes our country unique and wonderful?

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains. I and other environmentalists will not stand for any level of damage to this World Heritage listed environment.
Buy back the flood plain land as recommended by insurers instead of pretending to make it safe so developers can befefit at the expense of a national treasure! There is no reason good enough to justify damaging an irreplaceable international asset!
• The rationale is flawed. Raising the dam wall will not protect people and homes as the dam wall will overtop no matter how big you build a dam.
• The precedent of ignoring Australia’s responsibility as a signatory to the World Heritage Convention and a requirement to do everything in its powers to protect the ecological integrity of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. If the EIS is approved what will this mean for our other World Heritage Areas?
• The failure to protect the values of Wild Rivers like the Kowmung River, and the degradation of declared National Parks.
• Ignoring the The Gundungurra Traditional Owners who have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed.
• The moral and ethical consequences of creating a false sense of security for people living on the floodplain when their families and homes will be at risk of flooding.
• The immense environmental and cultural costs that will result if the dam wall is raised.

To whom it may concern,
It is with great concern that I hear of the proposal to raise the Warrangamba Dam and I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition to this proposal.
I have a strong personal connection to this part of the world, having spent many weeks camping, hiking and climbing through the area in my twenties. It is stunning and iconic country with irreplaceable forest on it and a high concentration of Aboriginal historic sites.
I implore those reviewing this decision to consider the times we live in. The natural environment is under tremendous pressure and further destruction of native forest flies in the face of everything we are being told by scientists. Not just told, but having it shouted in the deaf ears of our leaders and policy makers who just don't seem to comprehend the urgency of our need to protect and nourish the forest we have left. We simply cannot get it back once we destroy it.
Are we to be remembered as people who allowed the destruction of yet more Aboriginal culture and spirit? This is just as destructive as the blasting that took place in Western Australia. It will not be overlooked. When will the NSW Government show some respect for Aboriginal culture? What hypocrysy to be conducting 'Welcome to Country' ceremonies but being perfectly willing to submerge hundreds of historic cave paintings and sacred sites. Surely consent is required from the traditional owners of this land. This consent has not been sought or granted.
The Environmental Impact Statement was clearly commissioned as a document that would present no obstacles to the proponents of this scheme. It has been called out as the sham that it is by no less than the Commonwealth Government among others. The firm engaged has a questionable reputation and has been barred from the World Bank. The report has woeful ommissions and failures that have been identified by reputable experts. Yet I'm given to understand that there is a refusal to carry out a bona fide EIS using a reputable firm.
As a tax payer, I find this to be unacceptable practice. No private business could get away with this cavalier approach.
If this project goes ahead, we may as well still be living under the rum economy with all the ugly graft and corruption that went with it. I register my absolute opposition to this irresponsible and ill-considered proposal.

To whom it may concern,
I'd like to express my concern about raising Warragamba Dam. I fear the natural environment and our indigenous heritage will be destroyed.

To whom it may concern,
Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – NSW Nature Conservation Council1021
Introduction
I am now in my seventies and live in Canberra but I grew up in the eastern suburbs of Sydney and over many years have bushwalked and stayed in many parts of what is now the Blue Mountains National Park.
I am very concerned that if this proposal to raise the dam wall is given the go ahead, about 65 km of pristine wild rivers and almost 6,000 hectares of National Parks will be flooded including 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Of course the Gundungurra traditional Owners have not been properly consulted nor have they given their consent for the dam proposal. Over 1500 of their identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated. Permanently submerging such a unique and precious area so close to Australia’s oldest and largest city and thereby obliterating unique and irreplaceable indigenous Country, heritage and its flora and fauna would essentially be in the cause of the NSW Government allowing developers to place an additional 134,000 people on the Nepean and Hawkesbury floodplains. This would actually double the existing floodplain population, which is hardly a sensible and considered planning strategy as we enter the era of climate change and extreme weather events, witness the floods on these very floodplains in March 2021 and the havoc they wreaked.
The concluding words of Dr Jamie Pittock of ANU in his Report Managing flood risk in the Hawkesbury – Nepean Valley spell out the problems and point to much betters solutions:
“The NSW Government’s strategy for managing flood risk in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley is predicated on allowing more people to move into harm’s way. The assessment of flood control favours raising the Warragamba Dam wall by ignoring its environmental and social impact, and the benefits of non-flood control alternatives. Alternative flood-management options have additional benefits for western Sydney, including greater safety for the most flood prone residents, better transport, a more vibrant agricultural sector, a healthier environment and improved water security. It is therefore crucial that other flood management measures are considered in a transparent process that is tested through an independent review process to avoid the serious economic and social impacts of major flood events.”
And this is not the first time raising the Warragamba dam wall has been proposed. In 1992 the NSW Liberal government led by John Fahey proposed a 23m increase to the Warragamba Dam wall. After a business case was developed by NSW Treasury and environmental impacts were considered, the proposal was abandoned by the Carr Labor Government which was elected in 1995. Yet Minister Ayres, the current Minister for Western Sydney, says that he plans for future development across the low-lying Penrith floodplain "as far as the eye can see" in the coming years. It does seem as if there is a yawning reality gap for some politicians when powerful vested interests are involved.
The Systematic Case against raising the Dam Wall
1. Gundungarra Traditional Owners have not consented to the Dam Proceeding
• Over 1500 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 the words of Gundungurra spokeswoman and community leader, Kazan Brown:
“Raising the Warragamba Dam wall would result in an additional two Sydney Harbours of dam water eroding, scarring and killing the plants, animals and rock shelters that are the last remaining connections to our lands in the southern Blue Mountains.
The only difference between the Warragamba proposal and the destruction of Jukkan Gorge is that our sites are located within a declared World Heritage area, a point barely touched upon in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment for the proposal."
2. There are Significant Environmental and World Heritage and Cultural Heritage Consequences of Raising the Dam Wall
Australian Government documents said:
“The impact of increased flood water levels within the dam is likely to have extensive and significant impacts on listed threatened species and communities and world and national heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.”
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park. In 2000 it was placed 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.
I have already mentioned that over sixty kilometres of wild rivers and thousands of hectares of National Parks will be inundated. Spelling this out, NSW will lose:
• The Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’ and 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 with populations of koalas and greater gliders;
• A uniquely Australian healthy and functioning ecosystem involving dingoes keeping kangaroo numbers under control and coexisting so close to Sydney;
• Habitat for endangered species including the critically endangered regent honeyeater and its favourite feeding tree the ironbark, Sydney’s last emu population, and other rare bird species including the turquoise parrot, the glossy black cockatoo and the brown treecreeper.
3. Systematic Failures of the EIS
At the outset it needs to be noted that SMEC Engineering which undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history of abusing Indigenous rights, and have recently been barred from working for the World Bank.
Tellingly:
• There were severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 which devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area, yet 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 for an EIS. Even worse, 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 consequence is that the integrity of the whole environmental impact assessment is fundamentally flawed, and must not be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning.
4. Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall will not Increase Sydney’s Drinking Water Storage
Warragamba Dam currently provides drinking water. The proposal is that an additional 14 metres be added to the dam wall height to capture flood waters during high rainfall events. During such events, the additional 14 metres of height in the dam would enable the accumulation of floodwaters for five weeks at a time and then after such a flood event the water would be gradually released to bring the dam level back to its 'full drinking supply storage level'.
5. Alternatives to Raising Warragamba Dam Wall
As mentioned in my Introduction, assuming no significant increase in unsuitable buildings or resident population there are many alternative scenarios to raising the Warragamba Dam wall which would protect the existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple flood management measures has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
On average, 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.
6. The Implications of raising the Dam Wall for Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Status
The Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites, an Australian committee the body which advises UNESCO, has warned of the potential for the Blue Mountains to be placed on the World Heritage in Danger List if the dam raising were to proceed. Thus there is a real threat that raising the Warragamba Dam wall may result in the de-listing of the Greater Blue Mountains from the UNESCO World Heritage List.
Conclusion
It is the NSW Liberal Government, acting on behalf of the development lobby, which is fundamentally the proponent of the dam wall raising. The NSW Labor Party and the NSW Greens have been vocal in their opposition to the proposal, voting against the Water NSW Amendment (2018) Bill that was passed by the NSW Parliament to allow the flooding of national parks resulting from the dam wall raising.
NSW Labor Shadow Water Spokesperson, Chris Minns, has said the dam wall raising would not proceed if NSW Labor were elected to government.
At a federal level neither major party has stated a position on the proposal, but both Federal and State Governments must give their approval in order for the dam to be raised. As it would breach the World Heritage Operational Guidelines, the Federal Government has discretionary power over the proposal.
According to Wikipedia:
In September 2020, the New South Wales Government was ordered by the federal Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to re-do their Indigenous heritage work, concerned that NSW has not adequately addressed the concerns of Gundungurra and other traditional owners in their cultural heritage surveys. The federal review also said that the environmental im

To whom it may concern,
This is an egregious act of environmental vandalism. Make no mistake this is not to stop floods but to release more flood plain land to developers. Stop this now or your names will live on in infamy

I am oppose to the proposal to raise the dam wall, in particular because I am a bushwalker and am familiar with the natural values of the lower Kowmung River which will be flooded if the project goes ahead. In addition the flooding will have a significant negative impact overall on the World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park and Kanangra Boyd National Park and the biodiversity which they contain. The claimed impact on aboriginal heritage is also a significant concern and should be avoided at all cost. I am aware of significant deficiencies in the environmantal impact study undertaken by SMEC which indicate to me that the environmental concerns are largely being ignored or underplayed.

To whom it may concern,
There are many reasons why those of us lucky enough to live in the Blue Mountains are opposing this dam.
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% 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.
Please stop this act of environmental vandalism.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in around the Southwestern Sydney and South Coast areas for the past 10 years, regularly enjoying the natural beauty and biodiversity of the Blue Mountains and the invaluable stretch of bush land that reaches further down the coast. I am concerned about the environmental destruction and loss of habitat that raising the Waragamba dam wall will cause in the pursuit of very little human benefit.
As a veterinarian who lived and worked through the bushfires of 2019-2020, I am acutely aware of the devastating impact the fires had on native wildlife, flora and fauna, across such a far reaching extent of the bush land in this area of NSW. The fires affected 81% of the Blue Mountains heritage area alone. There has been no environmental impact surveys conducted since the fires, and therefore the current standing environmental impact assessment can no longer be valid in these drastically changed conditions. Even prior to the bush fires, the original impact assessment included a vastly inadequate survey of threatened species that did not meet well established guidelines for this process.

More specifically, raising the Warragamba dam wall would directly impact the habitat of many wild river waterways and thousands of hectares of surrounding habitats that are recognised internationally as significant cultural and environmental areas, inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list. For local species, it would devastate the habitats of the threatened Grassy Box Woodland, the Camden White Gum and the critically endangered Regent Honeyeaters. Since the bushfire destruction, these impacts could be catastrophic for those species and ecosystems.
There has been no economic modelling reported in the EIS related to the dam wall raising so there cannot be a reasonable assessment of the costs and benefits. The flood plains of Western Sydney are fed by more than just the Nepean river, with multiple other large rivers converging in Western Sydney floodplain providing almost half the flood waters. Raising the Warragamba dam wall would cause environmental devestation while not significantly prevent flooding in Hawksbury-Nepean area. Any short term economic gains that could be made through development would quickly be lost by the effects of flooding on those newly developed communities.
The Western Sydney flood plains have been the source of great fertile soils for agriculture since Australia has been colonised. This provides a rich foundation for peri-urban agriculture, as well as being an integral part of the water and land ecosystems in that area. Developing this land for human monetary gains will be detrimental not only to the humans participating, but also the greater environment, the waterways and the biodiversity around the Sydney basin. It will increase runoff and cause worsening flooding conditions as concrete roads, houses and driveways reduce the water absorbing capacity of the soils and increase damaging run-off flows. It is well known that green space, biodiversity and healthy woodland ecosystems are integral in providing cooling to their local microclimate and sequestering carbon. With Australia's climate policies finally catching up with long-standing internationally established knowledge about the need to limit climate change, raising the Warragamba dam wall and developing Western Sydney flood plains would be in direct opposition to these goals. It would increase the heat island effect in the local area and destroy the green spaces and ecosystems that sequester carbon, stabilise the soils, and have evolved there to manage and mitigate the cycle of floods that are a natural part of the Hawkesbury-Nepean environment.
I adamantly oppose the plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall on the basis that the environmental assessment has been completely inadequate, the economic benefit much too small, the environmental impact much too great and the outcome contradictory to Australia's climate goals. There have been multiple alternative management strategies proposed that do not involve the utter devastation of already critically endangered and threatened ecosystems in internationally significant ecological areas. I strongly support a reassessment of the environmental and cultural impacts post-bush-fires and via a complete process that follows established guidelines. I also impress upon the government the importance of pursuing alternative, less environmentally destructive options for development and floodplain management.

I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to raise the level of Warragamba Dam. It is an environmental and heritage disaster. Better planning for housing and infrastructure that is not on a flood plain would be a far better option. It is so typical of this government to throw money at projects that no one wants except developers. Fix the problem don't exacerbate it.

I attended a lecture on the raising of the wall for Warragamba dam and I understand that the site is of particular importance to the Gundungurra traditional owners. By flooding this area irretrievable damage will be done to the site. I also understand that species of flora and fauna will be killed. I therefore protest the raising of the Waramanga dam

Please dont keep destroying more of natural Australia by raising this dam wall. This government has a shocking track record in conservation - from Koalas to feral horse management, to this erosion of natural wonders with the raising of the dam wall. I cant believe you are so obtuse. You dont deserve to be in government.

To whom it may concern,
The NSW govt is in the approval process to raise the Warragamba Dam wall, to protect developments on the Nepean flood plains that should not be there. Flooding the river valleys of our world heritage environment will further impact severely endangered animal species such as the Regent Honey Eater and Koala, and threatens our World Heritage status itself. Delicate valley plants are not adapted to withstand inundation and will not recover when flood waters subside. Disgracefully, over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal - further desecration for the Gundungara people. None of this should happen, nor does it need to happen, and the Govt can do better.
We pay our rates and taxes so you can work for us- this is a lazy solution that vandalises pristine wilderness and cultural sites we can never replace once lost. Where is your shame for even proposing to participate further in the dispossession of First Nations culture? Raising the dam wall will be hugely unpopular for the LNP in this marginal seat.
BM Residents are fighting this actively to protect our beautiful environment. It’s time to give back to country - we call on you to stop this project now!

To whom it may concern,
I have a deep personal connection to the natural habitat around Sydney. I live in western Sydney and could be affected by future floodplain development.
I oppose the of raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
The horrofic and life changing 19/20 bushfires drastically affected much of the habitat, and deserves at the very least to be taken into account in the EIS.
I believe that only surveying a small part of the actual Impact Area is gross negligance.
Destroying the habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater is not acceptable.
I believe that we can do better, and that future generations of Australian's deserve better than this

To whom it may concern,
It's about time that the Australian Government & all State Governments invested in Desalination Plants for all of Australia's Coastal Cities & took a look at what other Countries have done to provide consistent water supply for their needs & move away from drowning arable land & forests which are increasingly shrinking due to over development.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species.
The environmental vandalism that will be caused by raising the dam wall is irreversible, all to protect housing that should never built on a flood plain.
More infrastructure won't save those houses in the long run and we will all have lost a huge area of a unique word heritage area.
This government is already known as 'the koala killers'. Why doesn't the government do something for the whole community and all the plants and animals that live in the area to be flooded and protect this world heritage area for all, forever, as it should according to the environmental and legal reviews of the project, rather than providing economic gain for a few developers?