Warragamba Dam Raising

The U document outlining risks to the UNESCO World Heritage Park was published in this Spring edition (October 2021) of Discover the Blue Mountains Magazine, circulation 50,000. The W document has been endorsed for publication in the summer edition of the same publication, out in December. Copies have also been sent to Susan Templeman MHR and CEO of Blue Mountains City Council.

Just ensuring that the second and more pertinent document was successfully uploaded

Not sure if this document uploaded earlier, hence my subsequent attempt

This project sets up Western Sydney for another Lockyer Valley and Brisbane flood disaster!
The time and money wasted on this project would be better spent buying all buildings in the flood plain.

Comments on EIS for raising Warragamba Dam Wall -
I have assumed that World Heritage lands have been set up through parliamentary processes with protections that ensure their survival and handing on to future generations. I am totally opposed to the destruction of significant areas of the WHA. This would appear to be the first time significant areas of gazetted World Heritage lands in NSW have been proposed for destruction; accountancy-style compensation through the offsets legislations will result in a net loss of the authenticity of the valley’s biodiversity.
Importance of maintaining World Heritage lands intact for future generations
It is accepted that it is a Long term responsibility of national and state governments to maintain WHA intact for future generations. The EIS Risk matrix identifies Environmental consequences for upstream areas as Extreme due to Loss of a nationally or internationally recognised threatened species or vegetation community, and permanent loss of ecosystem function on a landscape scale (Table 8-17). This is to be dealt with by an offsets program, which because of the particular nature of the impacts (assumed by the EIS to be total destruction) and geographical nature of the valleys cannot offset any of the areas with like for like habitats and environments. This loss is countered by accountancy-style compensations providing on-paper land changes that do not replace the authenticity of the habitats lost.
Inadequacy of the quantum of land Offsets program for WH and associated lands
The whole area of 1,400 ha of the Project’s potential operational upstream impact area (Table 29.6), not just the 304 ha of GBMWHA, should be offset with a similar or larger area containing OUV values of similar relevance such as riparian or water dependent biota values, as these adjacent areas are the only ones with similar values, that could provide offsets if the 304 ha of GBMWHA were the only area impacted. Because of the international agreements and standing of World Heritage Areas the OUV of compensatory areas are likely to need international assessment.
The impact on the GBMWHA is much greater than the 304 ha area implies, as the OUV values are currently buffered by the adjoining lands.. Native vegetation types within the upstream impact area include areas of all 18 PCTs mapped in the study area. Endangered or critically endangered vegetation under the BC and/or EPBC Acts include: ▪ HN527 (PCT 840): Forest Redgum-Yellow Box = 127.8 ha ▪ HN553 (PCT 941): Mountain Blue Gum - Thin-leaved Stringybark open forest = 104.5 ha ▪ HN557 (PCT 1401): Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Forest Red Gum = 14.7 ha Loss of threatened flora species and their habitat ▪ 75 flora species credit species ▪ 16 fauna species credit species. The EIS Risk matrix for Environmental consequences for upstream areas (Table 8-17) concludes that the directly impacted areas are assumed to be completely destroyed.
Involvement of the Advisory Committee in the Biodiversity offset process
The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Advisory Committee must be involved in any offset selection process to ensure that additional areas are as relevant as possible to the areas destroyed as the Committee has wide knowledge of its values and lands. While there are copious descriptions on measures taken for assessing offsets, apart from saying that like-for-like habitat is unattainable, there is no information in the EIS of what areas are to be considered.
It is important that the outcome of the offsets is to enlarge the biodiversity estate, and not to fund ongoing and general management operations.
Cost of offset compensation is downplayed by land transfers of publicly owned land.
No idea of financial costs of the offsets compensation, are given in the EIS. Costs are downplayed by land transfers of state land. Monetary figures should be included in the overall financial examination of the project.
Commitment to long-term operation constraints needed: the raised dam wall will remain an ongoing threat to the integrity of the WHA
The EIS assumes firstly that the stored water will always be temporary, and released in less than 14 days, and secondly, that the high level will not be used in future as a permanent storage reservoir. Changes to these operational conditions will have severe additional impacts on the greater WHA environment which are not dealt with in the EIS. Since the WHA is set aside for permanent intergenerational long-term protection, some sort of legislative commitment is needed to ensure that these operational changes are complied with. In the absence of this assurance the raised dam wall must be regarded as an ongoing threat to the integrity of the WHA. Elsewhere with regard to land zoning on the floodplain the EIS states that zones will be unchanged, though they might be changed in the future. Similar administrative changes could affect the operation of Warragamba Dam.

Please find attached my submission in favor of raising the Warragamba Dam wall

To whom it may concern,
I do not wish for the warragamba dam height to be increased.
My major concerns are the ecosystems losses and the destruction of Gundungurra environmenal and cultural heritage.
Please reconsider.

To whom it may concern,
I totally oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for the following reasons:
1. The Blue Mountains has World Heritage Status that will be breached if the dam raising proceeds;
2. The dam raising will inundate wilderness rivers including the Kowmung, Coxs, Nattai, Kedumba, and Wollondilly by smothering them with weed infested dam mud killing many plant and animal species that inhabit the area;
3. Raising the dam will inundate indigenous cultural heritage sites, which shows a lack of respect for our indigenous population. Many indigenous people already lost their homes and way of life when they were ordered to leave Burragorang Valley back in the 1950’s to make way for the dam, please don’t take any more from these amazing people, particularly when the Gundungurra traditional owners have not given consent for the dam proposal to procced;
4. Raising the dam wall will only mitigate not eliminate flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley as the Grose and Colo Rivers also contribute to flooding in the Valley;
5. Raising the dam wall offers a false sense of security to those living in flood affected areas as the community start to think they have been granted total flood immunity, but unfortunately over time more development takes place and maybe the community is spared from some flooding that would previously have resulted but when a major flood event occurs larger than what the dam can hold back, then even more homes, businesses and lives are at risk than ever before because developers are allowed to build on flood prone land.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for almost 20 years having moved from the city to escape overdevelopment, noise, pollution and to enjoy the natural beauty of the Blue Mountains. I am a regular bushwalker and nature lover and am worried that the NSW Government is considering destroying this World Heritage area for the sake of further development in a flood prone area. The government has the power to choose the environment over development and look for alternatives to raising the dam wall, such as the relocation of those homes already impacted by flood waters, building flood evacuation roads, lowering the supply level of the present dam and saying no to further floodplain development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

To whom it may concern,
As a Blue Mountains resident I have walked and camped on numerous occasions along the Kowmung river. To lose this pristine river to flooding, due to the raising of a dam wall, would be an environmental disaster that should never be allowed to happen. I am strongly opposed to the raising of the warragamba dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to you about my concerns for the proposal to raise the Warragamba catchment dam wall.
I strongly disagree with this proposal on the grounds of significant damage that will be caused to the environment and cultural heritage of the affected river systems and land.
The decision to raise the Warragamba dam wall is Sydneycentric and only development based!
This proposal is absolutely disrespectful of the natural environment, flora and fauna and its World Heritage status.
This proposal is also disrespectful of the cultural heritage of the original custodians of this land, The Gundangurra people!
There are alternatives to this short term propsal, and the NSW government needs to show proper leadership, and not follow such a Sydneycentric, disrespectful and money driven policy!
I am a caretaker of this ancient land and respect it's natural beauty, it's heritage and its flora and fauna!
Please consider this and please look for alternative solutions for future generations, not a meaningless money driven lifeless society.

To whom it may concern,
I don't agree with killing agriculture and tearing down heratige land. I do not support rebuild of warragamba danm

To whom it may concern,
Raising the warragamba dam wall will create great habitat lose for a lot of native Australian species some of which are endangered

Basically, a flood mitigation dam needs to be normally empty to provide protection for a period of time (until it overflows). A water supply dam needs to be full to provide maximum storage for the use of a city population. These two fundamentally different requirements cannot be provided by one dam. There is a basic conflict of use for the structure. The downstream population is still under flood threat no matter how high the dam wall is. If it rains for a long period there is a greater water volume to send downstream. This proposal is in conflict with itself. Maximum storage for a thirsty population or minimum storage for population protection. You cannot have it both ways.
Separately, many high volume rivers running into the Nepean-Hawkesbury system enter DOWNSTREAM of the dam. If more population is housed on the floodplains in the mistaken belief they are protected by a dam upstream of significant water sources, the flood danger will be worsened, not eliminated.
Do not raise the dam wall, it does not make sense.

To whom it may concern,
Raising the warragamba dam wall will create great habitat lose for a lot of native Australian species some of which are endangered

To whom it may concern,
As someone who works in the Environmental field and has lived in the Western Sydney area near the Blue Mountains for 23 years, I've had a long time to truly appreciate the natural areas of the Blue Mountains and surrounds. Along with the deep personal connection I have to this area, I also have a good understanding of the natural environment and just how much damage this plan is going to cause to it.
I do not support the plan to raise the Warragamba Dam by 17 metres as by doing so 5,700 hectares of National Parks will be inundated, along with 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and 65kms of wilderness rivers.
In addition to the shocking impact it will have on our wilderness areas and the destruction of habitat for native animals (such as the Regent Honeyeater, koalas, platypus and Sydney’s last Emu population), an estimated 1,500 indigenous cultural heritage sites will be desecrated.
This will also be a breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
With the governments' recent public commitment to tackling climate change and net zero emissions by 2050 - this project being approved is going to set a precedent for the similar treatment of conservation land in the future - which is something the environment can't afford if we are to ensure the safety of our natural areas in the long term.

To whom it may concern,
The raising of the dam wall does not make economic sense and will have unjustifiable impacts on the environment and heritage.
If this occurs it is further proof that the Daryl Maguires of the NSW government are running the show and that "Dom does as he is told".
We cannot allow this atrocious misuse of public money.

I do not believe that there is reason to raise the warragamba dam especially considering the ecological impact it will have on our bushlands and wildlife. Frankly, I'm disappointed that well over 50% of nature will be negatively impacted for what seems to be another money grabbing attempt.

To whom it may concern,
I do not want the dam wall raised.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly disagree with raising the Warragamva Dam wall to increase capacity. I doing this huge amounts of land & vegetation will be destroyed. Our ecosystem is fragile. Animals & plantlife should be protected not anniallated.
We should be learning how to use less water & recycle what we use rather than building bigger dams.
It is our duty to protect our environment by developing sustainable practices that have the least negative impact on it.