Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
The amount of enviromental damage soon to be caused by raising the dam in a World Heritage location is stupid.

To whom it may concern,
Just give a shit. Stop being the problem. Make your position in life count. You are so privileged & it is something you should be proud of, but seriously be someone that doesn't f*ck the planet up and someone your mum can be proud of.

To whom it may concern,

I have been reading with interest this proposal to flood an area of the Blue Mountains in what seems to be an insensitive manner having enormous negative impact on the environment both flora and fauna. I deplore the natural flow of life being disturbed and do not support this plan.

Dear Submissions
I Stewart Mcfarlane wholeheartedly support this project , ie Warragamba Dam Raising Project SSI-8441.
I live and work in the Hawkesbury and have witnessed first hand the devastation of flooding and in particular the flood in 2021 .
In some instances the toll on both person and property can never be repaired .

Dear Submissions
I Traci Mcfarlane wholeheartedly support this project , ie Warragamba Dam Raising Project SSI-8441.
I live and work in the Hawkesbury and have witnessed first hand the devastation of flooding and in particular the flood in 2021 .
In some instances the toll on both person and property can never be repaired .

To whom it may concern,
I hereby condemn the plans of the NSW Government to yet again bow to the monetary pressure of unsustainable property developers and thus, yet again, putting forward plans to even further reduce the state's unique and threatened natural habitat. Furthermore, I'd like to express my disgust on how, yet again, the traditional owners and custodians of country are being ignored and there traditions, knowledge and beliefs are being kicked by the feet of so-called politicians, even by making use of an internationally barred engineering firm on the grounds of the abuse of sites of Aboriginal significance.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 50 years and I am an active bushwalker. My wife and I raised our family of 5 here and 2 of our children and their families still live locally.
The loss of of 4,700ha of National Parks and destruction of 2,800ha of Wilderness and World Heritage Areas, which makes the Blue Mountains unique, as well as the further destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage is a disgrace. The degradation of the world famous scenery of the southern Blue Mountains with it's World Heritage listed wild rivers is a disaster.

To whom it may concern,
I OPPOSE THE RAISING OF WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL.

I make this submission in the hope that clear minds will realise that raising the dam wall is short sighted and only in the interest of developers and vested interests. It is not in the long-term an assured flood protection to the Nepean Hawkesbury low lands.
My reasons are as follows:
Warragamba Dam was never designed as a flood mitigation measure. Over the years since it was built, there have been many floods in the plains below. These floods have been as a result of water from the Grose and Colo rivers and their tributaries and had little to do with water from Warragamba. 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.
As a teenager in Riverstone in the early 60s, the excitement was travelling across the rail bridge to Richmond when the flats below McGraths Hill were in flood. Since then, developers have pressured successive governments to build in flood prone areas. I now live in the Blue Mountains and have over the years enjoyed bush walking in many of the areas, which, would be inundated with water if the dam wall were to be raised. Nowadays I drive along the Castlereagh Road when travelling to Richmond. Where the Castlereagh Road passes Penrith lakes, developers are again selling unsuitable land for housing. In fact some sold land is below the road level and water over said land when we were in drought.
Warragamba dam is heritage listed but this seems to be insignificant when planners are coming up with ideas. The original wall raised by 5 metres in 1989, changed the surrounding green space area where we used to picnic and hold the most beautiful of Christmas carol events. The spillway was installed in 2002 to protect the dam wall from water pressure when the dam was full and I don’t remember it having been used even when floodwaters were so high as to need the floodgates opened. From my knowledge, the 50megawatt hydroelectric power system installed in the dam is rarely used, as water is not high enough. It would seem to me, that with all our current knowledge of weather patterns, we could manage the water storage better by releasing more than the current daily amount for river health when weather patterns indicate increased precipitation.
I believe strongly that management of existing water, including the release of water for downstream river health would ensure that extreme floods, which, might in part be attributed to Warragamba storage would be averted. However further residential development further downstream will always be at risk of flood due to the topography of the land surrounding the Nepean Hawkesbury Valley.
Warragamba Dam and the waters behind it are part of The Blue Mountains World Heritage area, which, in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
An estimated 65 kilometres of Wilderness Rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project. This includes:
• The Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’, protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
• Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
• A number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
Currently approximately 28 per cent of Warragamba catchment, which is 3 kilometres from the high water mark, acts as a buffer zone to protect water quality. If the dam wall is raised the subsequent and water storage expands, this buffer will be reduced leading to possible water contamination upstream. It would also result in loss of land for existing landholders along the banks of the Cox’s and Wollondilly rivers.
Sydney water states this buffer, protects large areas of bushland, including plant and animal habitats; thereby protecting threatened plants and animals (some of which only exist in the Burragorang Valley). It also states the buffer protects Aboriginal heritage sites dating back thousands of years and preserves evidence of European exploration, early settlement and early industries.
The Environmental Impact Statement fails dismally to consider the impact that raising the dam wall would have on the remaining plants and animals and since the 2019/20 bush fires, which, devastated 80 percent of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area, and field surveys have not been sufficient to adequately to protect threatened species.
For too long we have ignored Indigenous history. It is time that respect for first Australians should always be considered and their significant cultural sites preserved and protected. The EIS assessed only 27% of the impact area for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Raising Warragamba Dam wall will flood remaining valleys, irreparably damaging and destroying significant sites. Dreamtime stories such as Mirrigan and Gurungatch, which, are part of the song line of Gundungarra history were already significantly destroyed when the dam was built over 60 years ago, a time when our white history treatment of first peoples was to say at the very least abhorrent. With this in mind, we need to protect remaining areas of significance both in respect of the past and for future generations to know and understand the significance of Aboriginal history.
I note that NSW is the only state that does not have legislation to protect Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. In relation to the proposed dam wall raising, Gundungarra traditional owners have not given informed consent, in fact the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment report failed to include meaningful consultation with Gundungarra community members.
In placing our trust in elected representatives, we hope that all courses of action are investigated. In regard to the rationale behind raising the dam wall (flood mitigation) I believe that the many alternative options should be considered. Methods of structural control of floodwater can be grouped into four types; namely, storage, diversion, enhancing channel capacity, and constriction of the water within the channel. The raising of the dam wall only considers storage. However if flood hazard maps were to include diversion down stream, we could in fact include man made wetlands and lakes such as Penrith lakes on previously quarried land as just one of the choices. In places where historically natural flood inundation such as the banks of the Windsor stretch of the Hawkesbury River, laid down sediment that improved soil, in these areas, which, are now residential, floodwalls could be constructed. I note that the EIS did not comprehensively assess alternative options and did not take into account the long-term economic benefit of these options.
Finally No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS and 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.

I object to the above proposal to raise the wall of
Warragamba Dam

Construction of the project will lead to periodic inundation
of considerable areas of land which have been permanently reserved as national
park or equivalent and some forms part of a property listed under the World
Heritage Convention. In nominating the Greater Blue Mountains Area (with the
active collaboration of the NSW Government) for listing under the Convention,
the Australian Government committed to ‘do all it can’ to protect and conserve
it and to transmit it to future generations. The proposal involves an
abrogation of Australia’s commitment.

Quite apart from the matter of reneging on solemn
international and local obligations, the area of land which will be impacted is
of particular value as habitat for some endangered species.

At the very time when many people have recognised that our
‘frontier’ mind-set has led to enormous destruction of Australia’s natural
capital, it is extraordinary that we now contemplate a government sponsored
proposal to greatly diminish the natural values of land that has long ago
received the highest possible levels of legal protection.

The threat of flooding in the lower Nepean River needs to be
resolved in a different way – most sensibly by a number of approaches that would
include (but not be limited to) a moderate lowering of the Dam’s Full Supply
Level combined with carefully managed and timed discharges shortly before
forecast major rain events. In addition, particularly vulnerable properties on
the flood plain might be voluntarily acquired over time and converted to uses
compatible with periodic flooding. The fact that approaches like these may
involve greater expenditure than the exhibited proposal perhaps only shows that
the intended sacrificial upstream land has been greatly under-valued. Offsets
for land impacted are most unlikely to offer real recompense for the attributes
to be destroyed.

To whom it may concern,
The raising of the Warragamba Dam wall (and flooding of the Burragorang Valley) is the latest in a series of poor decisions taken by the NSW Govt that will lower biodiversity and continue Australia's poor record on wildlife extinction.
The Burragorang Valley is the last refuge to many rare endangered species once widespread on the Cumberland Plain prior to Sydney's huge population growth and urban development over the last century.
Now is the time to 'stop and think' rather than 'finish the job'. The Regent Honeyeater once roamed in vast flocks from South Australia to Townsville. Huge losses of Eucalypt woodlands have reduced the wild population to less than 350. A last stronghold in the Hunter is a proposed Economic Zone for industry and houses while other known locations, such as Ryalstone are affected by mining proposals.
The Burragorang Valley offers another refuge, fleeing the 2019 bushfires, to breed in Mulgoa at a site earmarked for 'activation' due to its proximity to the aerotropolis. Now as the valley recovers and the Regent Honeyeaters return, it should act as a 'crucible' to try and help it's endangered wildlife recolonise ever decreasing habitat remnants in southwestern Sydney.
It's important to realise the riparian habitat and the open Eucalypt on the lower valley floor is what will be lost, leaving a larger dam in a Sandstone landscape. The EIS should have noted this in their findings, but like so many development approvals there has been little or no groundtruthing. It is also apparent that the same pro development mindset has been applied to the indigenous heritage of the site.
Given the rampant urban growth and ongoing habitat loss in Sydney, the raising of the Dam would allow for development of the flood plain, adding to developers profits rather than public safety. Nature, flora and fauna, biodiversity, wildlife, call it what you will, but now is the time for Australia to take its place on the world stage and give it's unique plants and animals the respect they deserve.

To whom it may concern,

I strongly oppose raising the height of the Warragamba Dam, as this will cause irreversible destruction of vast swathes of world heritage National Park.

To whom it may concern,
I am an ecologist named Lesley Sammon. I have worked in the Blue Mountains and Southern Highlands for the past 22 years. I am also a local bushwalker.
I have close connections with the Gundungurra people whose sites and country will be inundated and damaged by this raised wall. I am familiar with the areas that are to be affected by the raising of the Warragamba dam wall. Much of the Gundungurra people's country has already been inundated and damaged by the flooding caused by the initial building of the Warragamba Dam. Please don't cause more pain and devastaion to these people's heritage which is profoundly significant.
Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for this dam proposal to proceed.
I oppose the raising of the dam wall. As well as concern about the inundation of Gundungurra sites and country, I am concerned about sedimentation, erosion and invasive weed infestations. This will have a terrible impact on cultural heritage and biodiversity in the region, in particular, adversely impacting the nationally threatened Camden White Gum forest.
Thousands of hectares of World Heritage listed National Parks and declared Wilderness areas will be damaged if the dam wall is raised.
Please don't allow the flooding of World Heritage listed National parks, Wilderness areas and cultural heritage by raising the dam wall.
Please consider the many alternative options for flood risk mitigation.

To whom it may concern,
I live in the Blue Mountains with my family and we have chosen to live here for its natural beauty. We acknowledge that this is Aboriginal land and that it is a World Heritage Area and it should be protected.
We are very upset to hear that the amazing and irreplaceable Blue Mountains may be flooded due to the raising of the Warragamba Dam. This is not necessary.
I am very concerned that only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. This may be equivalent to the Rio Tinto destruction.
The World heritage area must be protected, and it is outrageous that the choice of engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) has an established history abusing Indigenous rights and has recently being barred from the world bank.
The dam is expected to destroy 6,000 hectares of National Park, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and 65kms of wild rivers. While the Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained. The government cannot rely on this flawed Environmental Impact Statement. Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum.
Alternative additional housing for solutions must be found that will not destroy this pristine area. I would like to know what economic modelling and environmental assessment has taken place to assess of the floodplains would even be viable for housing?
I urge you to look for alternatives and reconsider the mass destruction of out natural environment.
There are greater economic benefits in maintaining tourism to the area that supports the livelihoods of so many people in the Blue Mountains as well as the economic possibilities of carbon offsets.
I would appreciate your reversal of this proposed project.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposal to increase the Warragamba dam wall for the following reasons.
I’ve extensive experience exploring the bush within the area that would be impacted by this proposal. My experiences of the area, seeing diversity of native flora and fauna, landscapes, natural water courses, in my opinion reinforce the UNESCO’s World Heritage listing for its World Heritage values and the need for the area to be protected. Especially from flooding large areas such as that proposed by this project. If people feel this degradation is justified, then they obviously have not seen the area, been involved or carried out a basic, reasonably objective environmental and cultural evaluation.
Since the severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 that devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
Just 0.5% of Australia is Wilderness. Don’t destroy the tiny bit of wilderness that Australia has left. I have travelled around the world and throughout Australia and there are few places within and outside of Australia, such as the wilderness areas of the Blue Mountains that have had little impact from people, reinforcing that from my view we need to save this area from destruction by this proposed raising of the dam wall and water levels. Furthermore, if the wall was raised, this would lead to the increase in the exclusion zone for the protection of the water quality that therefore further removes my right as a resident to enjoy the solitude and peacefulness of natural bushland as it reduces the accessible wilderness and world heritage areas for the people of Australia.
Examples in Victoria has the “High Country”, South Australia “Wilpena Pound” and “Simpson desert”, Queensland “Daintree”, Western Australia “Kimberley”. All these places have been impacted by people that have led to some level of degradation and are far from the equivalent World Heritage status, yet the Blue Mountains, primarily protected from roads and people for the drinking water quality within Warragamba catchment has significantly protected the area from weeds and allowed the area to maintain its bushland solitude, beauty and natural diversity. The area has intrinsic value for all within the world. For some it is diversity of animals, the landscapes, the aboriginal sites, others researching the plants and fungi, and others just to experience natural bushland as it has been for thousands of years in one of the few places left on earth. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.

Further increasing the water level 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 would be significantly destroyed by the Dam project. Surely decreasing the dams maximum water level would have the same effect of allowing flood surges to be captured, yet not impact the world heritage area. For sustainability of water supply we should implement water recycling for the Greater Sydney region so the reliance on a dam for drinking water of any size is minimised and the protection of the environment is maximised.
In February 2020 we had significant rain that resulted in the flooding of the Hawkesbury River at Richmond and Windsor where it’s reported the Government wants to protect residence in the historic flood zone with this project, yet the Warragamba Dam Did Not overflow. Surely this reinforces the studies that report that only half of the water comes from the wilderness area catchment, and that raising the dam wall would have massive impact on the “World Heritage area” and heritage for future generations within Australia and around the world, yet little impact on the flooding of the Hawkesbury Nepean flood zone around Richmond and Windsor. There has been No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
From an economic point surely Australia having this world heritage recognised area as an intrinsic value and as a tourist draw card that will go on forever, is significant better value to the Australian and New South Wales people, than for a 55% chance that residence that were allowed by Government zoning to build in the flood zone be rezoned and or compensated at a less long-term cost.
Terrestrial Protected Areas in Australia by IUCN Management Category (2020) reported by the Australian government shows category 1b (Wilderness such as the area to being proposed for inundation by this proposal) is, in total for Australia, just half of one percent of Australia’s land mass (0.5%). Surely when the World recognises this tiny area of Australia as World heritage value, so close to Sydney where people can experience it and its natural and cultural value, that we as a nation should ensure its protection for now and future populations. Ref: https://www.awe.gov.au/agriculture-land/land/nrs/science/protected-area-locations
We need to trust the review of the project has been made via experienced, independent and thorough. 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.
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.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park, in 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
In my view it is unacceptable for this country to degrade the small piece of wilderness by allowing National and State Governments to go against the will of the people and World Heritage assessors. This proposal negatively impacts 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, that 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;
• Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
• Unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
• A number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
• Habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
There are alternatives
• Don’t allow building in flood zone.
• 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. The alternative can be to “Buy back” that land that was sold within the flood zone as residential land.
• Reduce the water level within the dam to assist with flood mitigation and result will not further impact the World Heritage area.
• Start recycled water system to reduce the reliance on Warragamba for Sydney’s drinking water and build the long-term vision of sustainability for the environment, and the resource requirements of the general population.
Summary
• Reject the proposal and do not raise the dam wall
• This area of natural bushland belongs to the public and the native plants and animals. No person or Government should be allowed to degrade this world recognised public asset.
• Get some long-term vision that embraces the intrinsic value of the Australian environment for the current and future populations.

To whom it may concern,
RE project SSI-8441 (Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall)
I have no connection with the project or area effected other than the odd bush walk and some family who live in and near the Blue Mountains
I strongly disagree with raising the dam wall for the following reasons
Damage to a declared wilderness area
No guarantee that the flood plain will be protected from inundation as the area is fed by more than one river.
Insufficient time and effort spent on any investigation of the project
Impact on Indigenous cultural heritage sites

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
I have a longstanding connection to both sides of this issue. My late father was one of the workers who built Warragamba Dam; my mother spent her childhood holidays in Katoomba and Blackheath. I have been spending annual bushwalking holidays in the Blue Mountains for some 50 years, first with my parents and now with my own child and partner. We love the Mountains so much that we are hoping to retire there in the next decade.
To risk damaging a World Heritage Area on the basis of a deeply inadequate EIS would be unforgiveable. The EIS does not take into account the enormous bushfire damage of 2019-20; it does not meet the guidelines for threatened species surveys; and it does not fully assess the impact on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
The EIS does not model the claimed benefits of the proposed wall-raising, nor does it assess alternative courses of action to protect floodplain residents. Given that some 45% of floodwaters affecting the floodplain come from other sources, this is surely important.
Please do not allow this rare, internationally-recognised natural wonder to be destroyed in the interests of property developers' profits. Please listen to the many people who love the Blue Mountains, and to the Gundungarra Traditional Owners who have cared for this place for tens of thousands of years.

To whom it may concern,

My family has lived in the Warragamba area for 4 generations, my grandfather was even a worker on the original dam. This issue is close to my heart.
I strongly oppose the proposed raising of the Warragamba dam wall.

Firstly, the proposal disregards the massive amount of threat to world heritage listed areas of ecological and cultural significance. Some examples include:
-Threat to diverse and unique species of eucalyptus trees.
-Habitiat destruction of native endangered wildlife such as the regent honey eater, the blue mountains perch and Sydney's last remaining emu population.
-Over 1500 significant cultural sites for the Gundungarra people are at risk of being lost.
-Ecological damage to the banks of 65kms of wild rivers such as the Kowmung river which is protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
-Protection of this land will help combat climate change through protecting our unique ecosystems and ancient flora and fauna.

Apart from these important environmental reasons, the proposal also makes a lot of false assumptions that the dam wall raising will protect existing and future residents of the flood plain. These are not valid due to the following reasons:
-The proposal assumes the flood plain population will double by 2050 whereas government power could be used to restrict development.
- The wall raising will not stop floods but merely interrupt small ones, the bigger the flood the less value the raised wall holds.
- While development companies support the proposal, insurance companies (such as IAG) do not. Thus demonstrating that the flood plain will still be high risk for residents.


The wall raising project will also cause a lot of disturbance to the lives of Silverdale and Warragamba residents with high volumes of truck traffic on the roads. This will increase noise pollution and create traffic congestion to our small area.

With these reasons being stated, I urge that superior, alternative solutions be considered. Some of these include:
- Consideration to buybacks of properties on the flood plain for residents in high risk areas. Offering a voluntary pathway out for many that can't afford the rising insurance premiums.
-Constructing new roads as evacuation routes
-Flood management solutions on a local level (as opposed to state) such as well designed evacuation procedures.

I look forward to you considering the points I have laid out in this email. From my research, it's undeniable that the proposal is flawed.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to oppose the Warragamba Adam raising proposal.
it would be on direct contravention of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area's inscriptoon on UNESCO’s World Heritage list.
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.
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 is not acceptable.
Further, over 1541 identified cultural heritage siteswould be inundated by the Dam proposal.
Finally, 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.