Warragamba Dam Raising

More Than One River:
Raising Warragamba Dam wall will reduce or delay many moderate and major flood events but ultimately will not be able to prevent inevitable catastrophic flood events across the Hawkesbury Nepean floodplain. There have been floods where all the flood water flowed downstream along the Nepean/Hawkesbury Rivers and most recently mainly down the Grose River. Also, a significant per cent of floodwaters has come from tributaries downstream of Warragamba Dam. That is likely to change over time. As urbanisation increases the area of hard surface in places like the South Creek catchment it is likely rain will run off more quickly and potentially be increasingly more dangerous.

Reduce Risk to Life:
There appears to be two main objectives for the proposal to raise the dam wall. The first is, '….to reduce flood risk to life…'.
Questions:
How many deaths have occurred due to flooding along the Hawkesbury system since, say, 1900? I can remember 4 - one being a youth in a tinny travelling from Windsor to McGraths Hill and hit power lines. A second was a lady walking through flood back waters. A third was a man on a horse checking cattle & fences. A fourth was a man trapped in a car in Cattai Creek. I assume there are more but how many!
Have there been more deaths on the river due to water skiing?
Have there been more deaths due to power boat racing?
Have there been more deaths due to general boating accidents?
Have there been more deaths due to swimming drownings?

If the Government was serious in reducing flood risk to life the obvious strategy would be to stop housing development in the valleys. Surely, it would be more sensible to build on the high ground. The big flood will come, and the more houses in the flood plain (valleys) the more lives will be lost. Example of those occurrences are the recent flooding events in Europe & USA where the loss of life was into the hundreds.

Risk to Property:
The other main objective is, '…to reduce flood risk ….., property…..'
It is assumed property refers to:
Private: These can be loosely categorized into three groups.
Buildings in the flood plain of long standing where the owners have knowledge of flooding and manage the risk and deal with the consequences. In most instances the current owners knew the risk when they purchased the property.
Structures on the river bank such as caravans, water ski lodges and associated buildings and not approved structures. This group was most affected by the recent flood when preventative measures were not taken. The owners of those facilities took a known risk.
Homes built in the valley/flood plain will result in more damage in a flood that cannot be minimised by controlled release of water from the dam.
Public: Examples of the latter would be roads, water, sewerage, electricity. It is strongly argued there is a need to better deal with 'flood risk management and preparedness in the valley.' This should include ensuring:
water supply is maintained both sides if the river
sewerage is maintained both sides of the river and
a power supply is available both sides of the river.
No more development in the valley/flood plain. The more development the more property will be impacted in a flood that cannot be minimised by controlled release of water from the dam.

Evacuation:
It is recognised the proposal includes, 'Adequate local roads for evacuation'. It is assumed there has been considerable feedback the evacuation roads are not adequate to cope with the needs. It is also clear the Government does not intend to include a ‘flood free’ river crossing of the Hawkesbury to cater for those wishing to reach higher ground. It is strongly urged this strategy be revisited and included in the Richmond Bridge Duplication Project.

Trust:
In October 2018, the NSW Government passed legislation to allow the flooding of World Heritage listed national park by raising the wall of Warragamba Dam. Obviously, this was three years before the EIS was released. Passing such legislation prior to the release of the EIS and a final business case clearly highlights to the relevant Government Departments, and the companies that are employed to conduct studies and provide reports, the intention of the Government. Heads of Departments are employed to carry out the Government activities, and the employees are employed to carry out the business of the heads of Departments. Contractors are employed to carry our the assigned tasks fully cognisant of the Government’s clearly stated objectives. Is it called getting what you pay for? Independent advice is no longer independent. Public Service is now Government Service. That is how trust is lost in Government and its agencies.
The EIS for the Warragamba Dam Raising proposal was scheduled to be exhibited in 2019. Subject to environmental and planning approvals, a final business case was to be prepared for consideration by the NSW Government in 2020. A business case to assist decision-making about whether to proceed with these major flood mitigation works is scheduled to be released in 2022. One can only surmise why it has taken so long to complete these processes, especially in light of the business case for the trap shooting facility in Wagga Wagga. One wonders how many times these documents have been revised to support the Government’s intention.

Length of Flooding:
'Raising Warragamba Dam would provide flood mitigation through the temporary storage and controlled release of floodwaters.' The Government has provided no detailed information about how releases of water held within this flood mitigation zone will be managed. Will the controlled release of floodwaters result in the river height being above normal levels for longer? Will this level of river height cut any roads or bridges for longer such as the Yarramundi Bridge? Will this level of river height have extended negative impacts on farmers being able to pump from the river?

Treatment of Conservation Issues:
There have been fears within the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment over treatment of conservation issues.
WaterNSW wanted terminology in the research for the EIS changed from 'would likely' to 'may' affect dozens of threatened plant and animal special through upstream inundation.
Regarding a number of plant and animal species, SMEC said they were altering the phrase that the inundation would 'likely kill’ to ‘may adversely impact’ a proportion of the population.
The EIS significantly reduced the expected toll on World Heritage bushland.

Minister Kean:
Minister Kean told a parliamentary hearing the economics of the $1.6 billion-plus proposal to raise the dam wall by at least 14 metres were 'difficult'.

Insurance Industry:
On 15 February 2021 the Chief Executive Officer of the Insurance Council of Australia, Mr Andrew Hall, wrote to the Chair of the committee updating the ICA’s position on the wall raising on the basis of meetings with Traditional Owners and concerns raised about the cultural heritage assessment stating: “…the position of the general insurance industry is now that without satisfactory environmental and cultural heritage impact assessments being completed and made public to allow for full and open assessment, the industry is unable to support the proposal as it currently stands. We would advocate for the exploration of alternative mitigation options to reduce flood risks for downstream communities in consultation with the industry and traditional owners.”

Recommendation 3 of the Legislative Council Inquiry:
“That the NSW Government convene a roundtable of stakeholders to inform a more detailed options assessment as part of the final Environmental Impact Statement and Business Case for the project.”

Conclusion:
A decision was made within Government some years ago to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam for whatever reason. Since then, all efforts have been made to justify that decision. This strategy is poor decision making and poor use of public money. Development has gone on unabated in the valley/flood plain which actually puts more lives and more property damage at risk in a big flood that cannot be minimised by controlled release of water from the dam. Flood evacuation routes are inadequate and the refusal to built a ‘flood free’ bridge across the river to higher ground is unwise. The lengths to which the Government and its agencies go to diminish the effects on the heritage, environment and aboriginal considerations adds to mistrust.
It is for those reasons the current proposal cannot be supported.

Mr Ian English & Ms Jennifer Gorman
50 Clanwilliam St
Blackheath NSW 2785
1st of November 2021



NSW Department of Planning
Attention Mr Robert Gordon Stokes
Locked Bag 5022
Parramatta NSW 2124

Ref No: SSI – 8441

Objection to Raising of Warragamba Dam

Dear Sir,

I am writing to you to express my absolute abhorrence at the NSW Governments proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam and inundate some 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.

I do declare that I have not made any political donations and have no affiliations with the either NSW or Federal parties, nor do I have any involvement with groups like the Extinction rebellion. I have been a resident in the Blue Mountains for twenty years and moved up here to provide a healthy environment for my son. We have walked many of the tracks in the wilderness together. I strongly believe we are just custodians of this environment and have an obligation to future generations to preserve what is left. Over 40 years I have witnessed environmental degradation and species decline caused by mining, development and poor farm management and permanent damage it has caused to our environment.

At a time when the environment requires more focus on the conservation of pristine areas, the threat to the many endangered species of extinction and conservation of our carbon sinks is of primary importance, how the current and recently past ministers could consider such a violation of one of our most precious resources just defies any reasonable sense of morality or logic. Particularly when there are other options available and flooding such as the 1 in 50-year flood we had in February 2021 was predicted, some say serious flooding was avoidable, and very few lives were seriously threatened.

It is very clear the direction and where the interests of the NSW Government are, its all about profit for the companies like Lend Lease. Currently this company is destroying one of the last sustained Koala Habitats in the outer fringes of Southern Sydney. This is less than six months after the Hon John Barilaro was watering down SEPP 44 and the Protection of Koala habitat. One has to wonder the influence the lobbyists have on our elected members. Nothing to see here folks, we are all being “entirely transparent”.

So, at the present the NSW government is seeking to degrade one of our last wilderness and World Heritage areas and telling the public we are taking all necessary precautions, despite the fact they are in breach of our obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

The NSW Government engaged a company of ill repute, SMEC Engineering to undertake the EIS. A company with an extremely poor record when working with indigenous people, and banned by the World Bank in some third world countries. A company who can draw conclusions by assessing only 27% of the impact area and habitat, and spent 3.5 hours looking for Koalas. In my profession in the past, I have worked closely with Ecologists doing field work in Cumberland Plains Woodland, Blue Gum High Forest and Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forests, to name but a few Endangered Ecologically Endangered Communities. I have worked within the guidelines of what was once considered responsible environmental management and practices.

The NSW Government ignored the calls of our indigenous people and propose to inundate an estimated 1,500 cultural heritage sites, contrary to its own regulations. I doubt any OECD country could boast such an unconscionable act.

To see to NSW Government sideline and dilute the Heritage Significance regulations, the SEPPS and Guidelines is cringeworthy and shameful. The absence of any morality and consideration of the environment for now and future generations is absent altogether. Unlike the Franklyn River where I was amongst the protesters in 1980, we do not have a government of on a Federal Level that is likely to intervene, particularly with the likes of the Hon Scott Morrison or Hon Angus Taylor who are influencing policies. Like SEPP’s the title Honourable means little these days.

Many eminent people have come forward and declared this project not feasible and its expense unjustifiable, UNESCO have also raised serious concerns, why the NSW government persists defies logic even when its early original EIS recommended against it. It will be no doubt taxpayer’s money that will fund the project and the big developers and the wealthy land holders that will profit from it. It seems to me that any sense of ethics, morality and environmental responsibility has left the NSW Houses of Parliament at least for the Liberal National Party.

I am not an extreme “greenie” I am an educated person that understands the necessity for achieving a balance between Environment and Community, but this proposal really tips the scales. I am confident that my views are shared by an overwhelming majority of residence in the Blue Mountains and many more concerned and educated people further afield.






Yours Sincerely
Ian English BSC Urban Hort, Dip 5 Arb

CC Hon Ms Trish Doyle
Colong Foundation for Wilderness

I do not support the project for the following reasons. Firstly, it will have serious environmental effects. A number of bird species including the endangered regent honeyeater are active in the area to be submerged. The area also contains the remnants of pre-settlement grassy woodlands which are an important wildlife refuge. Secondly, the area concerned is an important historical site which witnessed the violent interface between the original inhabitants and the white settlers. It is therefore of spiritual and emotional importance to the first nations people in the wider area. Finally, the raising of the dam wall is obviously linked to future plans to extend residential development in south western Sydney. This expansion of suburban sprawl based on extensive car use and road development is exactly what is NOT NEEDED as we move as a state and country toward carbon neutrality.

To whom it may concern,
Good morning I strongly disagree with the raising of the dam wall . I'm a keen Bushwalker and have walked the Kowmung for many years to have this beautiful area destroyed is a tragedy. With today's technology recycling sewerage is the best option . Secondly raising the wall to stop flooding downstream isn't going to change as so much of the flooding is caused by rivers flowing below the dam wall . I noticed Susan Ley the federal minister also has reservations about this proposal , so hopefully sanity prevails and the government looks to more environmentally conscious options.

To whom it may concern,
It is a bad time to be contemplating projects that have the potential to do any damage to any rivers in nsw. I'm strongly opposed to any development that affects rivers or that builds on flood plains. There are plenty of regional towns that could do with née residents- no need to build on flood plain.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to object to the Warrangamba Dam raising project.
I understand that houses in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley will not be protected by raising the Warragamba Dam wall, 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.
Please consider other environmentally friendly options eg a desalination plant that will help in periods of drought, more public education about water saving methods of living.

To whom it may concern,
A bigger dam is a greater source of rotting vegetation and greenhouse gas emissions. A bigger dam destroys even more endangered ecosystems and species. Most of the dam reflects a plan to stuff Sydney with even more people, and have more paved over land in flood zones, for the benefit of land speculators. Such activities increase the local vulnerability to floods. Instigated by politicians that think coal mining under water catchment areas is a splendid idea. Sydney needs degrowth, as we have already exceeded our ecological carrying capacity. I am expecting mass deaths from unsurvivable heat waves, global food systems collapse. Stupidity is everywhere.

To whom it may concern,
To raise the dam wall would be an act of criminal vandalism! DO NOT RAISE the dam wall!

To whom it may concern,
I object to the NSW government's plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
This will destroy many important Indigenous Australian cultural items and places that are very special to them. When does this destruction ever stop? It is the year 2021 and it is time that this cultural vandalism was permanently stopped. Heritage should be saved for Indigenous Australians, and for all of us and future generations. The Cultural Heritage Report was inadequate and has been criticised by ICOMOS and the Federal Dept of the Environment.
I object to the drowning of the Kowmung River. This is a very beautiful and wild river. Flooded areas are devoid of native wildlife; freshwater and riparian ecosystems will be destroyed. This places at risk the World Heritage Listing.
It is inappropriate and irresponsible to be further developing the floodplains of the Nepean River, and danagerous. I am not convinced that the dam wall will prevent flooding on the plains. It would be better to have in place a regular release of water from the dam, combined with permanent water restrictions, so that the dam does not have to be kept full.

To whom it may concern,
I am making a submission in regards to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall, and the associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I have lived in NSW all my life. When my parents first came to Australia in 1955, the Blue Mountains was the first place they visited outside Sydney and it became a regular recreation spot for my family. As a secondary school Geography and Studies of Religion teacher I have taught many lessons about the importance of the Blue Mountains to the geography of NSW and the cultural importance of the Land to indigenous communities. As a result, I am concerned about aspects of the EIS and I am opposed to the proposal to raise the dam wall.
I am concerned about flaws in the EIS. There have not been any field investigations of the impacts of the 2019/20 bushfires on the environment of the area. The investigation of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage and the impact of the raising of the wall on threatened species appears to be woefully inadequate.
I am particularly upset about the proposed flooding of 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, including the Kowmung River. Unique and threatened plant and animal communities would be irreparably damaged.
I am also concerned about reports that more than 1,000 identified cultural heritage sites would be flooded and that the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been found wanting by both the Australian Department of Environment and United Nations body responsible for World Heritage Sites, for not not doing a good enough job in investigating the impact on heritage values of the proposal, and also for not consulting fully and properly with Gundungurra community members.
I believe that there are credible alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall. Groups such as the Colong Foundation and the NSW Nature Conservation Council have produced alternate proposals that would mitigate flooding downstream of the Warragamba Dam, while still protecting the environmental and cultural heritage of the area. They would also be cost effective. It would require a multi-pronged approach, but I believe this would be a better alternative than the current proposal. The EIS itself does not, in my opinion, do enough to investigate alternatives to the raising of the wall. The reason given for the raising of the wall is to protect areas downstream of the Warragamba Dam from flooding, but I believe that nearly half of the floodwaters that would affect the downstream areas are not controlled by the Warragamba Dam anyway.
As a result of these issues, I reject the validity of the EIS and am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 22 years and I am completely shocked and appalled that this proposal has made it as far as it has - it's a massive slap in the face for both residents and tourists alike and most importantly the Gundungurra Nation.

Over 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area will be inundated by this project, including an estimated 1,500 indigenous cultural heritage sites. Sixty-five kms of waterways will be lost including the pristine Kowmung River.

This bushland contains crucial habitat for 48 threatened species including koalas, regent honeyeaters and platypus as well as other populations already recovering from the Black Summer bushfires which affected 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area.
Here are three reasonable alternatives to raising the dam wall:
1. Building flood evacuation roads
2. Lowering the capacity of the current dam
3. REDUCING FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT
The environmental impact assessments undertaken for this project were ridiculously inadequate, which either points to incompetence or more likely massive biases.
The UNESCO World Heritage Committee have raised serious concerns about this project which seems to fallen on deaf ears as it usually does with the NSW Liberal Party.

My question to them is this - Do you really want this to be your legacy? Irreparable environmental and cultural damage to a World Heritage Area on your tenure. If you think this is just - you are ignorant. If you are proceeding knowing that it isn't - how dare you.

To whom it may concern,
To destroy parts of the pristine Blue Mountains when there is a desalination plant sitting doing nothing is just crazy!!!! There has to be other options. What about spending the money on recycling water programs? How much water heads out to sea on a rainy Sydney day?
You are not trying hard enough.
DO NOT RAISE THE DAM WALL!!!!!

To whom it may concern,
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.
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;
I love nautural enviroments and particularly rivers. This dam will irreversibly destroy these rivers and surrounding areas. A brown rim of dead trees and dirt will be created where world heritage valued enviroments now exist
It is vitally important to protect these rivers and their environs.
High and medium density housing and land development outside national park and pristine environs can allow people a place to live without the damage that will be caused by the proposed dam.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the plan to raise the Warragamba Dam by 17 metres which will inundate 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and 65kms of wilderness rivers.
- It will be a breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention
- The Commonwealth Government has estimated that 1,500 indigenous cultural heritage sites will be desecrated
- Habitat for the Regent Honeyeater, koalas, platypus and Sydney’s last Emu population will be destroyed
- Only 7.5 metres of the 17 metre increase have been considered an “impact area” in an attempt to reduce environmental offset costs
- Approval of this project will set a precedent and we can expect much more conservation land will receive similar treatment.

Do not raise the dam wall. Stop building in flood prone areas. It’s very simple. Sadly, money speaks loudly. Short term gain is immoral.

To whom it may concern,

As someone who grew up in Warragamba, and whose family has been there since it's beginning, I immensly refuse to support the proposal to raise the dam wall. I do not believe there has been significant enough research into the consequences of raising the wall, nor into reasonable alternatives.
This is the reasons why I disagree the proposal:

1) The townships of Warragamba and Silverdale are severely undersupported. I worry the already lack of infrasacture will continue to deteroriate further with the estimated 200 trucks per day entering in and out of the town. The roads are not properly designed and mended as they should be, and ultimately cannot support increased traffic in the area. With the increased trucks, the roads will likely experience more potholes which won't be quickly attended to, leaving the countless people who live and/or work in the area to be at risk with their safety and vehicles. I don't believe the proposal adequately addresses this.

2) The towns are small and rely on the tourism from the Warragamba Dam picnic areas. With the forecasted closure of the dam's picnic grounds, there will be less tourists in the area and therefore one cannot help but worry for our town's already limited services.

3) There are more options not fully considered other than raising the wall. Most importantly, the area is a floodplain, and the government should be a) stopping further development on these lands and b) look into buying back land in particularly vulnerable areas. Our water systems are increadibly intricate, and because of this, the Warragamba Dam only accounts for a certain percentage of flood waters in the area. Focusing on raising the dam wall instead of addressing where else floodwaters come from is neglectful and misleading. As a person who went to high school in Emu Plains and currently lives in Penrith, I would appreciate the government taking measures that focus on more extensive and effective evacuation routes.

4) It is an expensive endevaour that is avoidable if other alternatives were explored.

5) Raising the dam wall will destroy the natural ecosystem within the valley. It is the natural wonder of this area that has allowed it a space as a UNESCO World Heritage Listing. Raising the dam wall directly conflicts with this listing, and will jeoprodise its future there. I don't believe there has been extensive research into the environemental impacts of this proposal, and worry for the destruction it may bring upon the ecosystem and the inhabitants that it supports.

6) Many traditional Gundungurra sites will be destroyed if the wall is rasied. The traditional custodians have not been properly consulted with, they have not given their consent, they do not support the destruction of their cultural property. They have already a lot of lost access to their ancestral home with the initial construction of the dam, and by allowing the further raising of the dam wall, it is another gross injustice to the Gundungurra people.

7) My grandfather was born in the valley, and so were his parnets, and they were forcibly removed when the dam was built. He cherished the landscape of the valley, and talked fondly of it. To see this area be put into further ruin is extremely upsetting.

• The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley has the highest single flood risk exposure in New South Wales.
• Raising the Dam wall will provide flood mitigation and significantly reduce the existing risk to life and property.
• Like many others our health, property and business have been seriously affected by the overflow from the Dam.
• We have not recovered and live in constant fear of the next flood and the danger to our lives if the wall is not raised.
• If only one human life is saved by raising the wall the project will have been more than justified.

We confirm that no political donations have been made.
Please consider our submission

To whom it may concern,

As someone who grew up in Warragamba, and whose family has been there since it's beginning, I immensly refuse to support the proposal to raise the dam wall. I do not believe there has been significant enough research into the consequences of raising the wall, nor into reasonable alternatives.
This is the reasons why I disagree the proposal:

1) The townships of Warragamba and Silverdale are severely undersupported. I worry the already lack of infrasacture will continue to deteroriate further with the estimated 200 trucks per day entering in and out of the town. The roads are not properly designed and mended as they should be, and ultimately cannot support increased traffic in the area. With the increased trucks, the roads will likely experience more potholes which won't be quickly attended to, leaving the countless people who live and/or work in the area to be at risk with their safety and vehicles. I don't believe the proposal adequately addresses this.

2) The towns are small and rely on the tourism from the Warragamba Dam picnic areas. With the forecasted closure of the dam's picnic grounds, there will be less tourists in the area and therefore one cannot help but worry for our town's already limited services.

3) There are more options not fully considered other than raising the wall. Most importantly, the area is a floodplain, and the government should be a) stopping further development on these lands and b) look into buying back land in particularly vulnerable areas. Our water systems are increadibly intricate, and because of this, the Warragamba Dam only accounts for a certain percentage of flood waters in the area. Focusing on raising the dam wall instead of addressing where else floodwaters come from is neglectful and misleading. As a person who went to high school in Emu Plains and currently lives in Penrith, I would appreciate the government taking measures that focus on more extensive and effective evacuation routes.

4) It is an expensive endevaour that is avoidable if other alternatives were explored.

5) Raising the dam wall will destroy the natural ecosystem within the valley. It is the natural wonder of this area that has allowed it a space as a UNESCO World Heritage Listing. Raising the dam wall directly conflicts with this listing, and will jeoprodise its future there. I don't believe there has been extensive research into the environemental impacts of this proposal, and worry for the destruction it may bring upon the ecosystem and the inhabitants that it supports.

6) Many traditional Gundungurra sites will be destroyed if the wall is rasied. The traditional custodians have not been properly consulted with, they have not given their consent, they do not support the destruction of their cultural property. They have already a lot of lost access to their ancestral home with the initial construction of the dam, and by allowing the further raising of the dam wall, it is another gross injustice to the Gundungurra people.

7) My grandfather was born in the valley, and so were his parnets, and they were forcibly removed when the dam was built. He cherished the landscape of the valley, and talked fondly of it. To see this area be put into further ruin is extremely upsetting.

To whom it may concern,
I have a passionate and personal connection to the bush. I have devoted my whole life to trying to conserve, protect and share the value of our native landscape with others. I grew up in Western Sydney and I am proud to have an understanding of the Cumberland plain and how critically endangered it is.
I am an experienced bush regenerator and I make a living protecting native landscapes. I feel it on a deeply personal level that you would even consider this development of raising the dam wall.
The facts are this the indigenous people of this country have not given permission for this atrocity to be performed on their land. You will destroy immensely important cultural heritage sites that are so valuable! This proposal risks already vulnerable and threatened flora and fauna in this sensitive area to be displaced or extinct from these proposed flooded areas. Plus it is clear that field surveys were a joke and not completed correctly.

I oppose the development of raising the dam wall! There are many other alternative solutions to flood mitigation in Western Sydney such as naturising the urban landscape and pushing for more councils and developments to establish water sensitive urban design.
We live in the greatest country in the world with unbelievable natural diversity especially here in Western Sydney and the world heritage blue mountains national park. We can do better to balance urban development and conservation for the sake of future generations

To whom it may concern,
I have a passionate and personal connection to the bush. I have devoted my whole life to trying to conserve, protect and share the value of our native landscape with others. I grew up in Western Sydney and I am proud to have an understanding of the Cumberland plain and how critically endangered it is.
I am an experienced bush regenerator and I make a living protecting native landscapes. I feel it on a deeply personal level that you would even consider this development of raising the dam wall.
The facts are this the indigenous people of this country have not given permission for this atrocity to be performed on their land. You will destroy immensely important cultural heritage sites that are so valuable! This proposal risks already vulnerable and threatened flora and fauna in this sensitive area to be displaced or extinct from these proposed flooded areas. Plus it is clear that field surveys were a joke and not completed correctly.

I oppose the development of raising the dam wall! There are many other alternative solutions to flood mitigation in Western Sydney such as naturising the urban landscape and pushing for more councils and developments to establish water sensitive urban design.
We live in the greatest country in the world with unbelievable natural diversity especially here in Western Sydney and the world heritage blue mountains national park. We can do better to balance urban development and conservation for the sake of future generations