Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
Do not raise the dam.

To whom it may concern,
I do not believe that raising the dam walls is the most viable or efficient solution for addressing water security and access concerns. Raising the dam wall does nothing to address root causes, like unsustainable and innefficient water usage. It is also unlikely to have an impact if rain levels are not sufficient to "top it up". But even in such a case the damage it will do to sensitive ecosystems downstream will be immense and irreversible. I am concerned about my own access to secure water supplies, but also about our responsibility to the environment and future generations. In light of its literal cost (still going up!) as well as that to the environment I urge the government to focus efforts on more sustainable and low impact solutions.

To whom it may concern,
I have had a home in the Blue Mountains for some 19 years, first for holidays/weekends and then a permanent home. During this time I have come to marvel at the Jamison Valley to which I wake up everyday. It is a rare part on NSW virtually untouched by humanity and the associated exploitation of the natural resources.
it has been a privilege and joy to appreciate this corner of earth recognised for its Heritage value. Each day we see more and more wildlife steadily returning and repopulating the country ravaged by fire. On weekends we walk the trails and on special occasions celebrate the UNESCO declaration.
It was therefore horrifying to hear the ludicrous suggestion that we needed to tame further the Burragorang valley by raising Warragamba dam yet again.
We noted the political expediency with which NSW politics has been infected in bowing to lobbyists and vested interests keen to make a fast buck from public assets.
We say No not on our watch and vehemently oppose the raising of the dam. We say yes to the vigilance of scrutinising and respecting long held promises and conventions that these pristine areas are critical and belong to nature from which Macquarie Street has become alienated. We say the NSW government should respect its obligations under the WH Convention, respect the 1500 cultural heritage sites, respect the blatantly obvious need to arrest the creeping expansionism and exploitation of nature, respect the prudential requirements for proper planning assessment and then respect the obvious conclusions therefrom.
We note the token environmental review and its systemic failures carefully crafted to suit a Government that is increasingly shown to be corrupt to the core. Liberal in every sense but the Truth.

To whom it may concern,
I reget the proposal to raise the Dam wall because it won't migitage floods, and there is an environmentally better project to spend that money on, whilst achieving the outcomes of a greater fresh water supply for Sydney on an as needs basis.
Fresh water detention and flood mitigation are contravening operational responsibilities of a dam. It's either one or the other but it can't be both. Warragamba Dam is Sydneys fresh water supply, not the Hawkesbury Valleys flood mitigation program.

It's environmentally irrisponsible to raise the height of the dam, threatening already endangered species like Regent Honeyeater, Koala colonies and Emu's. Trees are the best 'machines' at carbon capture, and you want to loose more by increased flooding in the catchment area. Nothing about this is appropriate for a planet in crisis.
Full cover home insurnace for Bush Fire affected damage has increased, yet there is no cover for flood damage. With climate change here and now, extreme weather events happening with greater severity and frequency, surely a better flood mitigation plan is compulsory building insurance including flood and erosion cover. Just like the Green Slip for cars, and the BOM regarding bushfires for me, let the buyer be aware of their choice to live in a flood prone area. Why should my tax monies pay for victums of floods or mitigation that won't work?

Warragamba dam is only one source of flood water of several tributaries, Picton floods and it's miles further upstream, and feeds into the Nepean/Hawkesbury river. On average 45% of floodwaters are not from Warragamba Dam. To imply the raising of the dam wall is for the purpose of flood mitigation is entirely false. Therefore leaving the NSW Government and hence the tax payers, open for litigation for when, not if, not in 100 years, like very soon, El Nino soon, the next flood occurrs and it will be worse, and will again likely cause death.
An alternate project, more environmentally sound project, is an extension of what already exists. Simply pipe the river safe, out water flow from the Winmalee Sewerage Treatment works to Prospect Dam.

Winmalee at an elevation of 230M above sea level, can simply use gravity to transfer water as needed to Prospect Reservoir at 130M above sea level, where existing infrastructure already exists to transfer that as drinking water to all of Sydney. A project that impacts all Sydney rather than a dam wall for flood prone victims. And it doesn't need to be running all the time when we have ample supply of fresh water in Warragamba saving maintenance costs. An alternative is to pipe the water down hill to the Penrith and Richmond areas as drinking water for Greater Western Sydney.
You can't stop floods. They are inevitable, just like bushfires are. So filling the dam to 100% giving Warragamba a singular purpose makes operations and responsibilities easier to manage. Additionally it will not be liable for discharging water during an extreme weather event.

Flood mititigation is better spent on awareness and adaption, ie: community/new-home-owner awareness of flood zones and risks, not selling properties in flood plains, setting a minimum height above flood level for residential properties bedrooms, or buy back river-side properties for low risk/loss developments like parks and nature reserves.

We we must recycle, reduce and reuse. We already know combatting climate change includes CO2 sinking but it's also about sustainability. The next drought, which is coming, will be worse than drought that preceeded the desalination plant approval. Storing more water isn't sustainable for the environment as it affect both upstream and downstream ecologies - this is known. Dams are bad for the environment. Recycling the water we currently use, is sustainable as it reduces the demmand from existing fresh water reserviours we've already built. Yes it comes at a cost, but water is precious and should cost.

And if you're interested in another environmentaly sound idea to create the worlds biggest battery, use green energy to pump the out take water from Winmalee back up to Katoomba. And this will reduce the Blue Mountains in-take of Water from fresh water reserviours.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to object to any raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons.
I consider that EIStatement released by WaterNSW to be a flawed statement and will not reduce the risk of future flooding to residents and occupants across Western Sydney. Historically, nearly half of the floodwaters impacting the floodplain come from rivers outside the Warragamba catchment.
Raising of the Dam Wall will encourage further ill-advised development in vulnerable areas without providing any guarantee of future protection.
The proposal will inflict terrible damage on the environmental and cultural values of the catchment which incorporates the Greater Blue Mointains World Heritage Area containg more than 60 kilometers wilderness rivers, thousands of Aboriginal sites,destroy some of the best remaining grassy woodlands ecosystem in NSW and healthy populations of our native animals driving many to extinction.
This proposal will be seen as an act of environmental vandalism. This is the last place that any government should sacrifice to enable further expansion of floodplain development.
What we need is better urban planning, not short-sighted fixes that will only encourage development in floodplain areas.

To whom it may concern,
We have lived in the Blue Mountains for over 15 years and have enjoyed many bush walks in this unique natural environment.
We value the fact that the Greater Blue Mountains is designated a World Heritage area and expect our governments current and future to uphold thier responsibilites and obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
This area includes wilderness, rivers, national parks and habitat for critically endangered species of birds, animals and other flora and fauna, which would all be inundated and annihilated by the resultant flooding as a direct effect of raising the Warragamba dam wall.
Furthermore this damage would erase from history over 1500 indigenous cultural sites, stealing these away from future generations of all Australians.
Overall the EIS is totally unacceptable and woefully inadequote; including no post 2019/20 bushfire surveys and pitifully inadequate field time and effort investgating endangered flora and fauna populations.
Finally, summarising, this is an ill considered project, based soley on finance and serving the vested interests of a small faction rather that the greater community and essentially highlighting that the NSW Government feel they can break their own laws and international conventions without remorse or recompense, irrevocably destroying millions of years of nature and history.
Please do not raise the Warragamba Dam wall - find another way.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba dam wall.
The COP26 climate summit in Glasgow has agreed to stop and reverse deforestation.
Raising the wall of Warragamba Dam with the consequent risk of destroying upstream wilderness forests through innundation and downstream floodplain forests through increased urbanisation is a short-sighted and expensive infrastructure project which will now be in direct contravention of this international agreement.

To whom it may concern,
Please do not raise Warragamba Dam wall. It would be a completely reckless to allow the flooding of sacred Aboriginal sites of the Gundungurra Peoples and World Heritage areas.
I plead with you that the wall is not raised. Please don't raise the wall for future generations. Make the right decision on this. Please.

To whom it may concern,
I recently went on a trip to the Warragamba Dam Viewing point and was amazed at how far the dam extended back. It shoule not be raised further so more land would be flooded when the dam is full, destroying so much of the wildlife, and Aboriginal sites .

I make this submission in strong opposition to the proposed raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam, in main because of the considerable loss of natural and cultural values should the proposal proceed.
I live overlooking the Nepean River. I have kayaked extensively along the Nepean River, and in a professional capacity have travelled by boat along the shores of Warragamba Dam. I have been involved in river management in Sydney and surrounds for many years and have a strong background in understanding the dynamics and environmental values of rivers, and in particular, the Nepean River system. As a professional, I have assessed and provided comment on the spillway modifications made to Warragamba Dam. This background has prompted this submission.
The proposal will unavoidably lead to the destruction of a considerable area of foreshore vegetation and habitat. The proposal will also lead to inundation of first nations cultural areas. Apart from these intrinsic values, the affected area also happens to be in a World Heritage Protection Area, and as such, regardless of other things, should not be considered for a proposal such as is the subject of this submission.
As a community, the people of NSW need to protect those things which we have inherited, and not destroy them. Who will we be if we continue to use a growing population as an excuse/reason to nibble away at our heritage!
On floodplain areas downstream of Warragamba Dam, there will always be a flood risk. Low-lying houses will generally be more frequently flooded than those on higher ground, however with a very large flood event, such as the Probable Maximum Flood, many more houses will be at risk of flooding. The speed at which floodwaters move, and thus the capacity of objects to be swept away, varies in complex patterns at different flood stages. Flood modelers do their professional best to provide flood risk maps reflecting these things. The NSW government has for many years been upgrading flood evacuation routes, so that if a flood warning is issued, affected residents will be able to get out of a potentially dangerous situation.
Rather than raising the wall of Warragamba Dam in an effort to reduce flood risk, it is recommended that the allocated budget for the project be used to continue to improve evacuation routes and to buy-back houses which are currently in the most at-risk areas. It needs also to be acknowledged that raising the dam wall will not guarantee a flood-free future downstream in any case.
We, as a community, must learn and accept, to live with our environment and not to degrade it. With a changing climate, we are going to be facing many challenges, including more frequent and higher intensity weather events. We have to adapt to these changes without destroying our part of planet earth.
I urge the decision-makers to discard the Warragamba Dam wall raising proposal, and to instead, recommend alternative and non-environmentally damaging strategies to address the issue of flood risk.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input into this important planning process.

I live in a beautiful world heritage list region of the Blue Mountains, and like many of the local population, we choose to live in this area because of the rich biodiversity and natural beauty of the landscape we are surrounded by. I vehemently oppose the dam wall raising proposal due to the irreversible damage that it will do to our unique and pristine environment.
Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall will destroy 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers and inundate 4,700 hectares of our world heritage listed Blue Mountains National Park. The proposal puts our world heritage status at risk and the damage to the local economy from such a change would be significant. The proposal benefits only developers, who want to build more houses on the already existing floodplain.
It doesn't take long to remember the destruction of the sacred and irreplaceable Indigenous sites of the Juukan Gorge Rock Shelters by Rio Tinto. This short sighted profit focused approach has wiped out the ancient cultural sites of first nations peoples and Rio Tinto have now expressed the following on their website We apologise unreservedly to the Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura (PKKP) people, and to people across Australia and beyond, for the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters.

"In allowing the destruction of the Juukan Gorge rock shelters to occur, we fell far short of our values as a company and breached the trust placed in us by the Traditional Owners of the lands on which we operate. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the destruction of a site of such exceptional cultural significance never happens again, to earn back the trust that has been lost, and to re-establish our leadership in communities and social and social performance".

Will the current government be prepared to apologise to the Indigenous peoples of the Blue Mountains region when their very own significant cultural sites are destroyed with the dam wall raising? Have we not learnt a valuable lesson from past mistakes, in the pursuit of development and short term profits?

The impact of increased flood water levels within the dam is likely to have extensive and significant impacts on listed threatened species and communities and world and national heritage values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This proposal cannot go ahead and needs to be rejected. There is a very real threat that raising the Warragamba Dam wall may result in the de-listing of the Greater Blue Mountains from the UNESCO World Heritage List. This is because it will impact upon the values for which the park was listed. The Australia International Council on Monuments and Sites, an Australian Committee for the body which advises UNESCO, has warned of the potential for the Blue Mountains to be placed on the World Heritage in Danger List if the dam raising were to proceed.

The government will not be forgiven if they proceed with this proposal and their legacy will be that of environmental and cultural destruction. The members who make the decision will be remembered by all people by the decisions they make about whether or not they protected this unique landscape that is so vital to this region. This proposal cannot go ahead and must be rejected!

Sincerely,
Stephen O'Connell

Raise the wall! We need more water!. Ignore the greenies!

Our wilderness needs protection not destruction

I am involved in conservation of our ever diminishing natural heritage in Western Sydney.

Too much has been lost to development and infrastructure already and this is all because low grade politicians and bureaucrats have bought the argument of sections of the commercial, industrial and housing industry that the economy should be founded on a large migrant intake with consequent demand for building, commerce and infrastructure.

I agree with the wise thinking of Peta Credlin who regards the aforesaid economic strategy as a Ponzi Scheme and of detrimental long term benefit to the nation.
What is happening is turning Western Sydney into a "hell hole" - a Los Angeles of Australia both in social fabric and environment.

In pursuing that course the government is impacting areas even beyond Western Sydney and the proposal to raise the Warrangambe Dam wall is an example.
I agree with the Colong Foundation which says:

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.
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 (except for the small population trying to survive in Wianamatta Regional Park).

I agree with the concerns of the Gundungurra people when they say:

• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
• The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.

I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

Yours sincerely,
Wayne Olling
Leura, 2780, NSW

The suggested raising of the Warragamba Dam wall is an ill thought out endeavour which is unnecessary and will be extremely expensive for the NSW taxpayer.
It will be harmful both to the physical and mental health of the residents of Warragamba and surrounding areas.
It will cause massive damage to native flora and fauna and local structures, roadways and houses.

I also note that the wording in the Water NSW Summary of Proposed Construction is somewhat disingenuous.

Stated in the Summary: 250 to 500 workers at various times.
250 light vehicles over a one hour period during peak AM and PM periods.

How do you get 250 light vehicles when it states there will be up to 500 workers?
Define light vehicles...I would suggest most tradespeople and construction workers would be driving work utes or twin cab Hilux type vehicles, many of which are diesel.

So that would be 500 vehicles in...and 500 vehicles out, because I am assuming that the workers are not all staying on site every night.

Now heavy trucks, again it is stated in the Summary that there will be, during peak construction, on average 208 heavy vehicle movements over a 10 hour working day equating to 21 heavy vehicle movements per hour.
Not quite correct 208 plus 208 equals 416 heavy vehicles a day. 216 in and 216 out.

Note that the The Summary does not state how many trucks will be fully loaded and with what maximum weight load.
It does not state how many will be single trailers and how many will be double trailers.
It is certain that the majority, if not the entire heavy vehicle fleet, will be diesel.

Let us move on to the roads and structures.

That is an enormous payload for the already badly damaged roads between Wallacia and Warragamba Dam if the proposed route for most of the heavy vehicles is going to be over the Blaxland Reserve Crossing: AKA: Wallacia Bridge and then along Silverdale Road and up Baines Hill.

I suggest that the Wallacia Bridge will suffer structural damage in a short amount of time.
I suggest that Wallacia Bridge will need to be completely surveyed, overhauled, and reinforced for the proposed huge amount of extra traffic across it and the enormous loads it will be expected to bear, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month.

In short I don't believe that Wallacia Bridge will be able to cope with the vehicles and loads outlined in the Summary.
Of course any work done on Wallacia Bridge to strengthen, repair, reinforce etc, should be on Water NSW and not Penrith or Wollondilly Council...although in the end the NSW taxpayer is expected to foot the bill for the work.

So...let's assume that Wallacia Bridge is made sturdy enough for 416 heavy vehicles a day...now we move on to Silverdale Road and the notorious Baines Hill.

Semi-trailers going to and from the Norton's Basin Quarry on Norton Basin's Road break down going up Baines Hill on a regular basis, often blocking the narrow road before they even reach the dual roadway.
This causes traffic jams, requires locals and truck drivers to control traffic and safety as best they can before police arrive to take over those duties, requires heavy vehicle tow trucks...and we must note that there are not even a 100 quarry truck movements a day, no where close to it.

I suggest that with the potential for 416 heavy vehicles a day we are going to see breakdowns on Baines Hill on a regular basis, perhaps even daily, or weekly.
Imagine the chaos that is going to cause.
Imagine how unsafe it is going to be, for all concerned.

And note the amount of diesel and oil spillage that is going to occur up and down Baines Hill, it is often quite bad now, how much worse is it going to be with 416 heavy vehicles a day?
I would suggest (as a motorcycle rider) that Baines Hill will become a potential deathtrap for motorcycle and scooter riders due to the diesel and oil spillage that will occur. There are often small and very slippery diesel and oil spills along the Baines Hill roadway now from heavy vehicles that already use the road.

Now we get to Farnsworth Avenue...and the sharp curves that run along the McGarritys Creek area....a dangerous sets of curves now...imagine how dangerous it is going to get with an extra 500 light vehicles and 416 heavy vehicles driving back and forth.
Many drivers cannot stay on their side of the double yellow lines along those curves now, I would expect there will be heavy vehicle to car and heavy vehicle to heavy vehicle collisions in no time at all due to the narrowness of the road and the grades of the curves.
It will become the most dangerous road in the area.
One could expect to meet a heavy vehicle along those curves at any time of the day and into the evening, perhaps even all through the night. There is barely enough room for two cars to travel past each other now, much less two heavy vehicles towing heavily loaded trailers, going in opposite directions around the curves.
Nightmare scenario to be sure.

Of course that part of Farnsworth Avenue could be widened, the curves straightened, the road surface reinforced, the speed limit along those curves dropped to 40 kph or below....again it will be the NSW taxpayer who foots the bill.

And let's not mention destruction to the native flora and fauna along Farnsworth Avenue when and if work commences or heavy vehicle movements jump to 416 a day. How much air and liquid and particle pollution will be caused to the surrounding flora and fauna, not to mention run off into McGarrity's Creek and then downhill toward the Warragamba River area itself?

What plans are in place to stop heavy vehicle pollution from causing damage and destruction to this area and others that the traffic will pass through?

Warragamba Public School...it is horrifying to think how much extra light vehicle and heavy vehicle traffic pollution and noise and vibration is going to affect the children, teachers and structure of the school.
Traffic will either turn left at the roundabout and proceed down Production Avenue, or drive straight ahead, right along side the school.
Engine and manual braking, micro tire shred, excessive exhaust blowback, deceleration and acceleration noise, road vibration...how much are the children and teachers and the school structures expected to put up with over the proposed 5 year construction timeline?
How much air and ground pollution is going to be caused in and around the school by an extra 500 light vehicles and 416 heavy heavy vehicles?
Pollution from the leaded leaded vehicles, pollution from the diesel vehicles.

Having all these extra vehicles driving back and forth, directly opposite Warragamba Public School (and the soon to be opened nearby child care centre) every day, for five years just shows a complete lack of thought and care for the safety of the staff and children who will be exposed to a wide array of chemical pollutants day after day...for FIVE YEARS!

(And that is if the construction proceeds on time as planned, which it never seems to do on Government projects)

The same goes for the local residents who live along or nearby the roads that are planned to be the routes the light and heavy vehicles will take.
I would suggest that the noise from heavy vehicles will be an all day/night event. As will the pollution and the possibility of vibration based structural damage caused to their houses and homes.

Not to mention how unsafe the roads used will become for local residents to walk next to, or in some cases on, because there is a distinct lack of footpaths in many parts of Warragamba and the influx of Dam Wall workers will not be familiar with the local roads and streets.
Riding a bicycle on any of the roads proposed for the extra light and heavy vehicle traffic will just be (literally) an accident waiting to happen.

All of the light and heavy vehicles will also be driving alongside or close to the Warragamba Recreation Reserve and Waterboard Soccer Oval and the Sports Field, and the Swimming Pool.
What a great treat that will be for the adults and children and dogs that frequent those areas to get some peace, fresh air and relaxation.

What a threat to the ground and aerial wildlife that inhabits the adjacent bushland and the park area themselves.
day and night Wombats, Kangaroos, Wallabies, Echidnas, Bush and Ring tailed Possums, Sugar Gliders, Ducks...all cross back and forth from the old Lion Park and Water NSW bushland to the Recreation Reserve and Waterboard Oval...I cringe at the thought of how much of the local wildlife in those areas are going to suffer with hundreds of light and heavy vehicles driving up and down Production Avenue 24/7.

Yes I said 24/7, I don't for one moment believe that the work will be contained in the stated 10 hour day.
Trucks will arrive and park up throughout the night, as they do everywhere major construction work is carried out.
Out of a genuine concern for the local wildlife along Production Avenue adjacent to the old Lion Park and water NSW bushland I would like to see the speed limit dropped to 40 kph or below. This may well save some wildlife, and even some humans, as walkers, joggers and bicycle riders and young children frequent the Recreation Reserve and Waterboard Oval.

If the construction of the raising of the Dam wall is sanctioned then the first thing locals will notice is that they will no longer see the ground dwelling animals in the adjacent parks, the noise and extra human movement will drive them deeper into the surrounding bushland.
The large variety of birds that live and feed in the trees of the parks and surrounding bushland will also move away.
Locals may well no longer awake to the sound of Currawongs and magpies warbling away, may no longer see the large flocks of Sulphur Crested Cockatoos and Corellas in and around Warragamba village.

The actual construction work..continual noise for the residents of Nineteenth Street and other streets that are in earshot of the Dam.
As an example; when a helicopter lands or takes off adjacent to the Dam area, to the residents of Nineteenth Street it sounds like the aircraft are landing in their own back yards.
One can only imagine the mental anguish of having to listen to the noise of 500 extra light vehicles, 416 heavy vehicles and the actual noise of the construction process, including crane movement, the banging and crashing of equipment and concrete, the general noise common to all construction sites, the included air quality pollution from who knows what sorts of dust and contaminants that will be floating around and blowing around in the air and settling on the local park recreation areas and the houses, homes and gardens of the residents of Nineteenth Street.
Contaminants that will doubtless contain groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate.

All of the above is an adequate reason to cease any thoughts or suggestions of raising the Warragamba Dam Wall, unless of course the mental and psychical health safety and security of the local Warragamba community, it's people and pets and homes are of no concern to the instigators of the plan to raise the Dam wall.

From a purely logical point of view; raising the Dam wall is not a guarantee that it will stop any future flooding of the areas below the Dam that have flooded in the past.
In reality houses and homes and other structures should never have been built in many of the danger areas to begin with.
It would be cheaper to purchase all properties at market value on the flood danger areas than to spend millions, if not billions of dollars of the NSW taxpayers money on raising the Warragamba Dam wall with no guarantee that a potential future of unrelenting rainfall will once again require the opening on the Dam floodgates and allow even more water to run downhill toward the flood plains.

I have to question the logic of allowing MORE water to build up on the backside of the Dam by making the retaining Dam wall higher.
It just means that there will be larger quantities of water that will require draining before the water level rises and the water breaks over the top of the raised wall.

No one can accurately predict what events of the ongoing climate change we will experience in the coming decades...but is extremely likely that storms and heavy rainfall in NSW will increase as we have already seen.
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall is a disaster waiting to happen.
The potential to save lives in the danger flood areas below Warragamba Dam would be best served by simply removing potential flood victims from the area by removing any homes, houses and habitable or work site structures from the danger areas to begin with.
A novel idea I know...one that doesn't make anyone any money.

So the real question is...does the NSW Government want to save lives or build more homes and factories and work sites in areas it already knows are danger flood areas?

Five years of air and water and ground pollution from light and heavy vehicles and heavy, continual construction work, something for all the residents of Warragamba to look forward to.

Say goodbye to the fresh rural air and the unpolluted countryside.
Say goodbye to the peace and quiet of our parks.
Say hello to a million extra light vehicle and heavy vehicle movements over the proposed five year period.

Ah, yes...certainly something for all of us to look forward to.

Things to think on.

On the basis of all the information I have received, I conclude that the disdvantages of this proposal greatly outweigh the benefits.

This submission highlights deficiencies in the WDR EIS assessment process

The projected construction and traffic management lists Park Rd as the only Northern Construction Route (Fig 24-22 Northern Construction Access Route) and is silent on Mulgoa Rd. This is a naive approach considering the time equivalence for drivers utilising Mulgoa Rd . The EIS Chapter 24 does not account for the cumulative increased traffic when combined with surrounding development already placing stress on Park Rd and Mulgoa Rd.
Littlefields Rd and Kingshill Rd which provide alternative routes for Park Rd are often abused by heavy vehicles as a short cut. The St Thomas and Kingshill Rd combined alternative to Park Rd (West-East) will be impacted heavily and is not currently managed correctly for heavy vehicle breaches. Mulgoa Road has not been developed as a major construction thoroughfare and will not cope with the Dam construction traffic without upgrades. There are other projects under consideration by both local and state government concerning Mulgoa Road which should be considered as a cumulative impact for Warragamba Dam traffic. Parallel project EIS considered in isolation is a misrepresentation of the cumulative impacts on the local Wallacia and Mulgoa Infrastructure.
Regards Dan Armstrong
Vice-President
Mulgoa Progress Association

To whom it concerns,
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains. I enjoy the World Heritage Area with my children and husband. We bushwalk regularly and this place provides us with fresh air, connection to nature and contributes massively to our overall wellbeing. I am opposed to the raising of the dam wall for 3 main reasons.
1- I understand that upstream biodiversity will be devastated by the proposed raising of the dam wall. The upstream areas provide critical habitat for endangered and threatened species such as the Regent Honeyeater, koalas and platypus populations. Climate change and other pressures such as deforestation, urban encroachment are already shattering our biodiversity in the Greater Sydney region. The 2019/20 bushfires is one example of the increased pressure on the biodiversity in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and this is one pressure that can be easily avoided.
2- I am concerned about the loss of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites that will be inundated by the proposed raising of the dam wall. Part of the reconciliation journey with our First Nations People involves respecting and protecting culturally significant sites. Gundungurra traditional owners of this land have managed to keep a deep connection to this Country despite colonisation and violent oppression. The cultural assessment has not been adequately undertaken in this instance and represents a lack of respect for traditional owners and for this reason alone the project should be halted.
3- Alternatives to raising the dam wall for flood mitigation purposes in Western Sydney exist and need to be more thoroughly considered to truly weigh the economic, environmental and social values of the proposed raising of the dam wall. Lowering the storage level of the dam and a combination of water saving measures are alternatives that I urge Water NSW to consider.
I am happy to discuss this further and look forward to your careful consideration of my submission.