Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for the past 26 years, and before that, I lived in the Hawkesbury.
It is vital that we protect our wilderness and World Heritage status. As an environmental lawyer and former advisor to the Hon. Robert Hill, I worked on the World Heritage nomination for some years, and was so proud of the bipartisan approach to the nomination. Increasing the dam wall, again, has no postive outcomes and will lead to environmental devastation. I have seen many floods in the Hawlesbury over the years, and despite these floods, council and government still allow development on flood plains. Raising the dam wall is not the answer; more sustainable development and better planning is the answer. Allow the flood plains to remain so as to provide fringe urban agriculture for food production.
Please dont destroy our wilderness for the sake of a few houses and poor planning.

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains and I love the natural beauty of the area. I am a regular bushwalker.
The Gundungurra people have not given their consent for the dam to go ahead.
The dam would imperil a number of their sacred sites.
It would also threaten native species, some of which are in peril of extinction already, having suffered major damage during the fires, and generally being badly affected by climate change.
We should be doing everything we can to help the native fauna and flora, not the opposite.

I am writing to make a formal submission to oppose the EIS of the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. My concern is based on the following key points.
1. The ineffective flood mitigation that this will provide, coupled with a false sense of security for new residents who build on floodplains.

2. The damage and removal of access to Indigenous cultural sites in proposed new water level.

3. The damage and removed access to native fora and fauna and the natural beauty of the whole area.

4. The short term benefit to some such as developers, land owners, businesses offset by long term burden to many, including tax payers.

5. Lack of critical analysis of alternative solutions such as increased desalinisation.

This proposal needs more careful investigation by fully independent parties with a fair and transparent process allowing reasonable time for responses. Thank you for allowing me to make a submission to oppose the current proposal.

I would like to put forward my submission of support for the Dam wall raising project.

The reason for my support is having seen first hand the devastation that a severe flood can cause to so many people and such a huge area of our community.

In the 2021 floods i saw people lose everything they have ever owned and work towards. People lost their homes, businesses and belongings. This is still an ongoing issue today, i also seen huge amounts of damage to the environment through countless wild animals and live stock being killed or misplaced, oils and fuels leaking into our river and erosion that can never be repaired. Hopefully this will never have to happen again

Thank you for taking the time to read my submission

This is outrageous! What does it take for government to stop raping this country? You will lose my vote if this goes ahead.

To whom it may concern,
I live in Wentworth Falls and am a resident of the UN listed Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Its world acclaimed status is derived from both its Aboriginal cultural heritage and its natural heritage. I share with the Gundungurra and Dharug First Nations peoples, who are the Traditional Owners and Custodians of the Blue Mountains, a profound sense of responsibility to protect the area from developments that pose a risk to its world acclaimed status. I note with deep sadness that if the plan to raise the Warragamba Dam wall went ahead, 1,300 hectares of the heritage area would be inundated.
I oppose the raising of the dam wall. This submission highlights the inadequacies of the SMEG Engineering EIS process. Second, this submission highlights the NSW Government’s lack of due diligence and its failure to implement essential investigations that should have been undertaken following the 2019-20 fires. These various deficiencies have been criticised by different authorities.
Hereunder, I set out some of the facts that underline my position of opposition. I believe that these are essential considerations for the Minister in making a decision on the dam wall.
The deficiencies of the EIS processes and NSW Government processes fall under two main areas: Aboriginal Heritage and Natural Heritage.
Aboriginal Heritage
• The Commonwealth Government has estimated that over 1,541 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the raised dam wall. Aboriginal heritage forms an important contribution to the international recognition of the area. Yet SMEG Engineering, the firm that undertook the cultural heritage and environmental assessments, surveyed only 27% of the impact area for the Aboriginal cultural heritage.
• Even this minimal area was given minimum time. SMEG Engineering showed a brazen disregard for the important task of assessing Aboriginal cultural heritage. The author of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report spent just 1 (one) day in the field.
• This cultural heritage report has been severely criticised by both the Australian Department of the Environment and the UN’s International Council on Monuments and Sites, for its inadequate assessment procedure, and its failure to conduct meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
• The engagement of SMEG Engineering to do the cultural assessment shows a lack of due diligence by the NSW Government. They have a poor record of working with Indigenous peoples, having been banned from working on World Bank projects in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Natural Heritage
Similar alarming failures in procedure are evident in SMEG’s environmental assessment process. Some of these failures are listed here:
• Considering the disquiet on the part of the public, many scientists and some NSW Government ministers concerning the decline of the vulnerable koala, it would seem apposite to seriously investigate the impacts of the raising of the dam wall on koala populations in the area of impact. Yet the firm spent just 3.5 hrs looking for koalas.
• Similarly, SMEG spent just 1 (one) day assessing the impacts on aquatic life, including the threatened
• The Threatened Species surveys undertaken by SMEG did not match the guideline requirements under the Act. Where surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not sought.
Subsequent to the failures of these EIS procedures, the NSW Government has failed to conduct follow-up studies that are essential to the overall assessment of impacts.
• The fires of 2019-20 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Yet the NSW Government has failed to undertake post-fire field surveys to assess the frequencies and distributions of threatened species in the Heritage Area.
• The federal Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment has raised concerns about 25 threatened plant and animal species that will face a risk of inundation if the wall raising goes ahead. In particular the Department singled out the greater glider, at risk of losing 200 hectares of habitat, with the forced displacement of over 230 individual animals. These losses would be magnified due to the fragmentation of the greater glider habitat, causing further population decline (Morton, Adam “Warragamba Dam: would a higher wall have prevented Sydney flooding?”, Guardian, 23/3/21).
• The Department also singled out the critically endangered regent honeyeater, which has populations in the impact area. It raised the risk that, of the total population that currently exists across the entire range of the species, half could be affected (ibid).
• The Department saw these impacts as being additive to the effects of the 2019-20 fires (ibid). The reductions of threatened species populations due to the fires will be exacerbated by the raising of the dam wall. The chances of these populations for post-fire recovery, even to their previous low levels, will be reduced if their habitat areas have been reduced by inundation.
• Consequently, the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment stated that, as a minimum, the NSW Government should map the extent of the fire area, and that it should also conduct detailed field surveys (ibid).
To conclude, the above stated objections show that the processes for assessing the possible impacts of a raised dam wall have been seriously flawed.
The Greater Blue Mountains has been listed by the UN as a heritage area of international significance for both its Aboriginal cultural heritage and its natural heritage. Yet we have little or no knowledge of how either of these factors will be affected by the raising of the dam wall. SMEG Engineering has failed in its duty under the Act to adequately and responsibly conduct essential surveys and other studies. Indeed, some essential tasks have been left alone entirely. The EIS has produced almost no information on the extent of Aboriginal heritage sites in the impact area and the Gundungurra people have not been adequately consulted. Similarly, the EIS has produced almost no information on the distribution and frequency of threatened species in the impact area.
In view of these deficiencies, the EIS can not be accepted by the Minister as a basis for decision making.
In addition, the NSW Government has failed to conduct studies on the status of threatened species following the devastating 2019-20 fires. We now have no knowledge of the present post-fire status of several threatened plants and animals in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Therefore we have no knowledge as to how the hoped-for recovery of several threatened species will be affected by inundation of their potential recovery areas.
Taking into consideration these inadequacies in the assessment processes and the resulting deficiencies in knowledge of the impact area, the Minister has, at present, insufficient knowledge upon which to base a decision on the raising of the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I would urge the NSW Government not to raise the Warragamba dam wall. Studies have indicated that the raising would have made very little difference to the recent Nepean flood. This smacks of a typical knee jerk NP reaction that building dams solves every water problem.
I have hiked the majestic Kowmung a number of times, and to flood this wonderfully pristine environment would be a travesty. And how would it be possible to contemplate disregarding the wishes of the Gundungurra people and defiling their ancient heritage in the wake of the Junkan Gorge outrage?
Please do not do this.

To whom it may concern,
I would urge the NSW Government not to raise the Warragamba dam wall. Studies have indicated that the raising would have made very little difference to the recent Nepean flood. This smacks of a typical knee jerk NP reaction that building dams solves every water problem.
I have hiked the majestic Kowmung a number of times, and to flood this wonderfully pristine environment would be a travesty. And how would it be possible to contemplate disregarding the wishes of the Gundungurra people and defiling their ancient heritage in the wake of the Junkan Gorge outrage?
Please do not do this.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing this due to my concern and appreaciation of the Blue Mountains as a World Heritage area, and the impact a large dam will have on land and habitat.
The areas surrounding the Warragamba Dam Raising project, are the flood plains whch are incredibly important as it places the natural habitat, birds and other species which rely on the flood plains and water ways, which are a valuble part of the beauty of the area and an important site for many rare native which live and and breed in the area.
I understand that over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam if built, and this goes against The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). There needs to be inclusion to appropriately assess cultural heritage with meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community memers and community.
The Blue Mountains are described as an "Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind", (see the 2000 - UNESCO's World Heritage list). Australias obligation to honour the World Heritage Convention is paramount, The Blue Mountains Kowmung River with the unique eucaluptus diversity, threatened ecological communities, notable Grassy Box Wooland; and the endangered and critically endangered spiceis including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's last Emu population.
Political and corporate agendas need to include all aspects of the project (the hightening of the damm), environmental, community, cultural elders/community, the risks and consequeces to the environment, including both the short and long term impacts on habitat and wildlife.

To whom it may concern,
[email protected]
Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI8441 – Mark Openshaw, Blackheath NSW 2785
I object to the proposal.
• There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
• The proposal will have major negative impacts on the Blue Mountains National Park, its fauna and flora, aboriginal heritage sites, and the UNESCO World Heritage Listing
• The traditional owners have not given their consent to the proposal
• The proposal will not meet its stated aim of protecting properties built on the floodplain
• The proposal is inconsistent with environmental protection legislation in NSW. Approval of the proposal would set a dangerous precedent for NSW’s national park and threatened species protections, and for Australia’s World Heritage protections.
I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.
I live in the Blue Mountains and regularly bush walk in the Blue Mountains National Park. I know many people employed in the tourism sector in this area. Their jobs depend on a protected environment and compliance with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. I submit that the Minister should bear in mind the following when considering whether to approve the raising of the dam wall.

There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
The severe fires during the 2019-20 summer devastated 81 per cent of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Despite the widespread acknowledgement throughout the community that the fires caused enormous loss of life to fauna and flora, the EIS includes no post-bushfire field surveys. This is seriously inadequate.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained. This is inadequate.
The assessment is based on just 3.5 hours looking for koalas and just one day assessing the impacts on aquatic life, including the threatened platypus. This is inadequate.
Only 27% of the area to be impacted by the proposal was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The author of the cultural heritage assessment spent just one day in the field.
SMEC Engineering, which undertook the proposal’s environmental and cultural assessments, has a poor record of working with indigenous people and has been banned from working on World Bank projects in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
The EIS contains no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of raising the dam wall.
The EIS considers that only 7.5 metres of the proposed 17 metre increase in the height of the dam wall will result in impacts upstream. This assumption is clearly unrelated to reality. The entire 17 metres should have been included in the assessment of the impacted area.
The proposal will negatively impact the World Heritage listing
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. The proposal will result in flooding of part of the area subject to World Heritage listing. The flooding will cause damage to natural and cultural values. The proposal therefore constitutes a breach of the undertakings made by both the NSW and Australian Governments and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
The proposal will flood 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, including:
• the Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’ and protected 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, koala colonies and Sydney’s last Emu population.
The traditional owners have not given consent to the proposal
The Australian Government has estimated that the proposal will flood more than 1541 identified cultural heritage sites.
The Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have both crticised the quality of the proponent’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
The proposal will not protect properties built on the floodplain
On average, 45% of floodwaters derive from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. No matter how high the dam wall is, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream as the dam wall will not impact floodwater coming down the Nepean River or the Colo River or other streams.
There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect floodplain communities, including levees, new flood evacuation routes, and reducing floodplain development. The EIS does not comprehensively assess alternative options.

To whom it may concern,

I am opposed to the raising of Warragamaba Dam Wall.
I hold this view because the very reason for having to raise the dam is because of too much residential development downstream on flood-prone land which has caused the problem. The dam is not at fault.
It is greedy developers and agreeable councils who are at fault.
Raisig the dam wall will cause occasional flooding of shores and creek upstream of the dam and within the national park. This defies the very reasons for having a national park.

To whom it may concern,
As an ecologist, I strongly oppose the plans to raise Warragamba Dam. Raising Warragamba dam would have distastrous environmental impacts, including a double destruction of habitat upstream and downstream of the dam. Upstream, areas would be flooded, killing large areas of forest and destroying lots of important terrestrial habitat. Rivers would become too deep for many existing aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, etc., causing losses in these populations. Downstream, areas would be even further depleted of water, causing stress for vegetation, especially under future droughts, and reducing habitat and feeding opportunities for animals, such as waterbirds.

We are at a time of massive anthropogenic impacts on the environment, with more than half of most ecosystem types being destroyed, a mass extinction event occuring and all these impacts being exacerbated by current and future climate change impacts. Right now, we need to solve future water shortage issues by investing in new technologies, such as water recycling, rather than further taking from our limited natural resources and threatening our beautiful environment.

I hope that you consider these environmental impacts and instead of raising the dam, decide to make future-focused plans, working with the water we already have, rather than further taking from nature.

To whom it may concern,
I am most concerned about the proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall. I reside in the Blue Mountains and my workplace is on the Hawkesbury flood plain.
This proposal concerns me for four reasons:
1. The project appears unlikely to meet stated goal, to reduce flood impacts in the Hawkesbury area. Warragamba is only one source of flood waters, with major flows coming from the Nepean and Grose Rivers. I understand the 2021 floods would not have been prevented by raising the wall.
2. The proposed destruction of protected wilderness area is difficult to comprehend. What does protection mean if it is not actually protected? Kedumba river is one of my favourite Blue Mountains camp sites, and would be lost if the wall raising were to go ahead.
3. The slap-dash approach to studing in the impacts of the wall raising are inexcusable. Inadequate in the field studies - just 3.5 hours looking for koalas in a vast area - to name just one aspect. It has the appearance of vested interests raming things through.
3. Given the destruction and low benefits, the project appears to be a waste of public money. The same funds would be better spent in other ways to provide flood escape routes and move infastructure out of flood impact zones.
I am against the wall raising for the above reasons.

To whom it may concern,
Please consider environmental consequences when providing state planning decisions. Dams are not the only answer. Better water management and better decisions about catchment areas and managing run off are some of the issues to consider. We will run out of wild and beautiful places and they are more valuable than asking citizens to have a shorter shower.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my outrage at the NSW government's proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for the past 20+ years and feel so fortunate to be able enjoy the unique and beautiful natural environment all around me.
I am shocked to realise housing development on the flood plain should be more important to this government than the unique values of our World Heritage National Park. I do NOT want to see the inundation of bushland and animal and bird habitat. I do NOT want to see the inundation of 1500 indigenous cultural heritage sites.
I DO want the government to respect the world heritage status of the area under threat. I DO want the habitat of threatened species like koalas, regent honey eaters and the last local emu populations to be valued, protected and respected.
I am a voter and I say NO to raising of the dam wall and NO to more housing on the flood plain.

To whom it may concern,
Please oppose the application to extend the dam wall. The destruction of natural habitat and historical sites is unconscionable and not justified by the desire to extend the land usable for building more houses for humans.

To whom it may concern,
Please oppose the application to extend the dam wall. The destruction of natural habitat and historical sites is unconscionable and not justified by the desire to extend the land usable for building more houses for humans.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for 45 years and a regular buswalker/camper. I have a strong commitment to maintaining the unique and hard earned UNESCO World Heritage Listing for the BM.
The vast majority of NSW has been cleared for farming, mining and human settlement.
In 2021 its about time governements took a leadership role in protecting what is left of our unique environment and indigenous cultural heritage.
The Blue Mountains environment is precious to all Australians and it is world renowned. It's our Frankland River.
The environment and indigenous culture heritage in NSW has overall played second fiddle for far to long. We need clever strategic leadership.
The experts are saying that raising the dam won't solve the flooding down stream and there are alternatives for flood plain management.
Listen to the experts for once because there are no alernatives once this precious asset is compromised.
It's time that governements put a true value of our scant remaining environmental and cultural 'capital'.
You can pull down football stadiums and rebuild them but you can't replace the unique wild environment and cultural heritage of the BM once it is compromised and destroyed.
Leave this treasure for generations to come, they will thank you for it.

To whom it may concern,
As someone who lives in the Hawkesbury area and is affected by flood waters. I am STILL strongly opposed to the raising of the dam wall. I am passionate about the cultural and world heritage significance of the area that will be affected by this poorly investigated option.
We all know the true reason for it. I can picture the persons face as they read this, ok what 'profound' thing is this person going to say blah blah save the heritage blah blah cultural significance blah blah listen to what the community want blah blah blah. But the real reason is the same reason one of the worlds longest protests held at Windsor bridge and many reports from various professionals were completely ignored.
GREED!!! what is the true benefit to raising the wall? Its not for flood mitigation it is so that more flood prone areas can be released for housing. So you can subject more people to the stress and worry of living in an unpredictable flood zone. Most of the flooding that occurs is loacalised flooding and this would not help us.
Stop thinking about dollar signs, Australia is a disgrace! Any shred of our very young nations history is always so quickly destroyed and wiped away without even a second thought. Continue down this path and we will have nothing left.
Stop lining each others pockets and actually listen to the people who will have to live with your poor decisions while you move on to your next project to make NSW great again (bullsh*t).

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my opposition to the NSW Government plans to raise Warragamba Dam’s wall 17 metres so developers can build houses on low-lying floodplains in Western Sydney. I am opposed to this development for the reasons outlined below.
If the government raises the dam wall, this would destroy the natural habitat in several ways. The flooding upstream of the dam, would kill off large amounts of vegetation and make areas too deep for lots of aquatic plants and animal species. It would cause further restrictions to water availability downstream of dam, causing vegetation to die due to lack of water and reducing habitat and food opportunities for many animal species, including waterbirds, causing declines in these animals' populations.
Furthermore, the dam is adjacent to large areas of national park. These areas are protected and should not be threatened - which they would be if the government raised the height of the dam wall.
Finally, dams have caused massive negative impacts across Australia. We need to be looking at alternatives such as water recycling, rather than taking more water away from our precious ecosystems.
The government's environmental impact statement has been heavily condemned by several highly reputable agencies. It is unexcusable that the NSW government has carried out no further field studies since receiving those severe criticisms.
I hope that the NSW government will do the right thing and leave the dam at its current height.