Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose raising the Warragambda Dam wall!
Having grown up bushwalking in the Blue mountains, i have a deep connection with the World Heritage area around the Coxes and Kowmung rivers.
This irreplaceable wilderness has immense intrinsic value and must be protected as pristine as it currently is, for current and future generations to enjoy.
There are deep flaws in the EIS with missing or incomplete assesments of the impacts. Alternative options to protect existing flood plain communities have not been properly assessed yet.
Given fundamental flaws in the process, the EIS can not be accepted for decision making by the Minister for Planning.

To whom it may concern,
I am emailing to object to the proposed raising of the dam wall at Warragamba. I object to it on two main fronts:
1) the flooding of our world heritage listed national park will be detrimental to the native flora and fauna in the affected areas;

2) the motives behind the raising of the dam wall are shaky at best and primarily are to allow development of restricted floodplain areas for the monetary benefit of the government & the developers - and at the cost of the future residents of the proposed developed floodplains, who will suffer when the raised dam wall fails to prevent the flooding that it is apparently meant to stop.
Considering all the failures of the state to implement proper infrastructure in the current floodplain affected areas (e.g. as highlighted by the recent flooding of Richmond, Windsor) I do not have faith that this proposed project will offer anything truly beneficial to the communities up or downstream of the nepean river.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to register my strong objection to the proposal to raise the dam wall.
It is difficult to beleive that so much area of National Park (including a World Heritage National Park) would be sacrificed to the need for floodplain protection, when viable alternatives for this exist. National Parks are meant to be inviolate protectors of nature against the impact of humans, and yet we have this proposal!
While an EIS can be pointed to, its inadequacies mean that it cannot be used to support a decision of this magnitude. Especially when it will not be possible to reverse the potential damage - the dam will not be unbuilt, the rivers will not revert, the loss of fauna and flora will not be remedied - in the future when the EIS inadequacies are fully exposed by lived experience.
There has already been huge damage to nature from the existing wall, I ask that this not be amplified by an even higher wall.

To whom it may concern,

I am an avid bushwalker, who has plans to travel to the Blue Mountains as soon as COVID restrictions ease. So I was very concerned to hear about the Warragamba Dam wall raising proposal.

I read that 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 - 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 and Sydney’s last Emu population.
I also read that "No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS" and "Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS."

I find all this information extremely concerning. Therefore I am strongly against the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I am horrified about the prospect of the raising of the dam wall.
The lack of respect for sites of Aboriginal cultural significance, threatened species and preservation of the land and airpsace over the world heritage land of the Blue Mountains is despicable.

I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I have grave concerns for the amount and quality of wilderness and World Heritage area that would be lost. I would also be distressed y the extent of damage and destruction to the fauna of the area- some endangered and others greatly at risk. I am concerned about the number of Indigenous sites that would be lost and the precedent that would set for the destruction of other sites across NSW, in the name of "develpment".
The proposals that I have seen and heard discussed on the radio by Stuart Ayres are not comprehensive, there is never reference to consideration of alternative ways to protect the floodplain and it appears he is not well informed in relation to flora and fauna at risk. Unfortunately, the drive appears to be developing more residential zones and property development which n and of itself will stress the areas it will take place in.
NSW constantly boasts areas such as Blue Mountains World Heritage, Koalas, platypus and beautiful birds but appears will willfully destroy that for the short term gain of increased residential areas in an area already with poor infrastructure and stressed resources.

To whom it may concern,
I live in the Blue Mountains and regularly bushwalk in my local area and further afield in the Blue Mountains National Park. The severe fires of the summer of 2019/2020 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. These fires were a wake up call in terms of the fragility of its flora and fauna in the face of extreme weather events that are becoming more frequent. These events have been totally disregarded and no post-bushfire field surveys for threatened species have been undertaken.
Our Blue Mountains World Heritage area is precious and Australia has obligations under the World Heritage Convention to preserve its values. It is appalling that plans are being made to further put at risk its viability at a time when we need to be doing all that we can to protect this unique and world renowned area.

To whom it may concern,
Submission on the Water NSW EIS for the raising of Warragamba Dam

I am writing to express my opposition to the raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam and in particular to express my concerns re the inadequate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) recently released by Water NSW to support the government proposal to raise the height of the dam wall.

I live in the Blue Mountains, surrounded by the most amazing scenery, constituting the Greater Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage Area. I live here in full appreciation of how unique and special a place it is on our planet and how privileged I am to be able to do so. Consequently, I feel a moral obligation to protect its unique wilderness values for all Australians to enjoy now and in the future but also and just as importantly, to protect it for its own sake and right to exist. And ironically, I refer to protection from human exploitation and human induced climate change!

There are substantial shortcomings in the project-supporting EIS that make it essentially a very flawed document that doesn’t come near reflecting the impacts of the dam wall raising on the national park estate behind the dam wall. I list my main concerns as follows :


• Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken to date for any purpose, including consideration within the context of this EIS.
• Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, the field surveyor/author for the cultural heritage component spending just one day in the field.
• Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements contained in the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment 2018 underpinning major projects. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
• No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS. Nor have alternatives to raising the dam wall been adequately assessed in the EIS. Is this sound project management?
• The integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed, and should not be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning. There has been much negative press around the integrity of Water NSW in the selection of its consultant engineering firm for the project, the down-playing of the environmental impacts in this revised draft EIS since the first one back in 2018 and an attempt to avoid paying adequate compensation for said impacts by lowering the “impact area” down to just 7.5 metres of the full height of the 17 metres proposed to raise the wall.

In conclusion, I do not support this EIS document as part of the planning process to justify the raising of the dam wall. It represents just one skewed and flawed box-ticking exercise of the entire planning pathway to giving the green light to raising the wall.

The project will likely cause irreversible damage to the largest intact wilderness area left in Australia and downgrade its World Heritage listing, already touted as a possibility if this project proceeds. The flood mitigation advantage should be considered by other means, starting with the prevention of any more development on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain.

Thanking you for the opportunity to comment.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly disagree with the proposal to alter the height of the wall of Warragamba Dam on the following premises:
My understanding is that almost half of any flood waters affecting existing floodplain communities would not be diminished by raising the dam wall as these floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream catchment.
It also appears that alternative options are not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. And assessment of these alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
Further, it would appear that opposition to and condemnation of the plan, by National Parks and Wildlife, Heritage NSW, and EVEN the Federal Government has not been taken into consideration. Surely, with such opposition or even criticism of this plan, other avenues should be fully and carefully explored when so much depends on getting the planning stage right.
The World Heritage Area of the Blue Mountains will be forever and irretrievably affected by this decision to the tune of 6,000 hectares. Enough of this has already been affected by the horrific fires of 2019-20 with so many native species dessimated. As well as destroying the Kowmung River and irreplaceable cave art and other ancient sites. Does the fact that the world has decided that Australia has this World Heritage listing mean nothing? We surely have a deep responsibility to examine all alternatives, particularly when so much could be lost forever, and particularly when there is strong opposition to this plan from other government authorities.
The NSW Government also has a deep responsibility to gauge all options in the most thorough way, particularly at a time when we as a community and a nation, seem to be becoming more aware of what in nature has already been lost to us by the sheer footprint of mankind.
In light of the forward looking and progressive planning and policies of the NSW Government in terms of combatting global warming and the environment, I am truly disappointed and alarmed at what appears to be a decision made on this matter in a shallow and expedient way. We can never come back from this. Therefore, we should explore every avenue possible for alternatives and make public in a clear and open manner how decisions are arrived at.

To whom it may concern,
I am not from NSW but I have had the privilege to walk and camp in the amazing Blue Mountain area and it saddens me to know that you as public servants are willing to destroy something that doesn't belong to you, it belongs to all Australians especially the traditional owners.
Its not yours to wreck for future generations. We are the custodians of what is passed on to our children. Let's leave them with an intact World.
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
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.
Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
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.
There are many alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
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.

To whom it may concern,

As residents of the Blue Mountains City Council, we would have it known that we are deeply saddened and shocked by the NSW planning departments proposed development in regards to the raising of Warragamba Dam wall. We would also like to express our profound concerns regarding the efficacy, integrity and impartiality of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the problematic and dubious reputation of ‘SMEC Engineering’ and the alarming precedent set by disregarding the conditions, stipulations and criteria required by the UNESCO World Heritage classification.
As residents of Greater Sydney, we are concurrently aware of the need to address the ongoing housing crisis. Clearly, there is an acute need to address this state-wide deficiency, with particular emphasis on the growing population of Sydney city and the consequential expansion of the Western suburbs. As necessary as such a governmental intervention is, the sacrifice and destruction of our remanent conservation areas, which includes countless culturally significance sites and many thousand hectares of unique habitat for endangered flora and fauna, is dissolute, deplorably and, to us as residents intimate with this landscape, inconceivable.
With each passing day and increasing scarcity, these sites become of greater and greater value; from recreation and tourism to CO2 sequestration and conservation, these forested areas are genetic vaults and natural time-machines, connecting all of us to our pasts, not least by virtue of their sublime beauty and their innate and integral wildness. This cannot be said of sprawling housing on the Western Sydney floodplain [sic]. The wild rivers, pristine wilderness and dry sclerophyll forests of this heritage national park, relatively untouched since the 1960’s, are unique and subtle places, occurring nowhere else in the world; a fact that alone we believe warrants its protection.
We would like to take a moment to restate a few of the selection criteria for world heritage classification as defined by UNESCO to further elucidate the uniqueness and universal value of this park: point (3): “To bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared”; (5) “To be an outstanding example of a traditional human settlement, land-use, or sea-use which is representative of a culture (or cultures), or human interaction with the environment especially when it has become vulnerable under the impact of irreversible change”; (6) “To be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance”; (7) “To contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance”; (8) “To be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features”; (9) “To be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals”; (10) “To contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation”.
As you will know, for a site to be included in the world heritage list only one of these points from a list of ten must be applicable. We believe that all the aforementioned clauses apply in this instance and call on the NSW government adhere to and respect the authority and legitimacy of the UNESCO World Heritage committee and standby the legally binding commitments of previous governments.
Notwithstanding the many layers of legislative protection which would be violated and breached were the Warragamba Dam wall project to go ahead, there is, we believe, a moral obligation in the spirit of integrity and judiciousness to perform a comprehensive review of the current EIS which takes into account the vast devastation and ecosystem strain cause by the 2019-2020 bushfires. Native wildlife populations have been severely impacted and there is simply still not enough data to confidently and accurately enumerate the remaining koala colonies, emu populations, threatened platypus and critically endangered regent honeyeaters. To threated these endangered species’ remaining habitat is utterly deplorable in the light of unprecedented global biodiversity loss which in turn threatens our own terrestrial life-support systems, the recent and ongoing Covid-19 pandemic being a case in point: shrinking habitat globally has forced humans and wild animals to interact in closer and closer proximity which presents the risk and increasing likelihood of novel zoonotic diseases being transferred between humans, livestock and wildlife.
Furthermore, the NSW government must take the allegations of misconduct and resultant barring of SMEC engineering by the World Bank seriously and conduct a public inquiry into these allegations before this company is awarded any more tax payer funded development projects. Considering the wealth of thousands of known and surely countless unknown culturally significant sites within the inundation-threated area, the NSW government is obliged to conduct a thorough and comprehensive assessment, taking into account the recommendations from the National Parks Conservation Association as well as the comments by Former NSW SES Dep. Commissioner Chas Keys, namely that the project in its current form is “flawed’ and “should not be proceeded with”.
In closing, we the residents and constituents of the Blue Mountains City Council, believe that project SSI-8441 represents a shameful breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention, sets a disgusting precedent of breaching historical commitments, shows wanton disregard for non-human life and threatened and endangered species and illuminates nepotic collusion between the private and government sectors respectively.

Please do not allow this project to go ahead. Please do what is right by standing by the conservation commitments of previous governments. Please respect our concerns as residents and Australian citizens. Please protect the forests we are, in this time and place, stewarded to protect.

To whom it may concern,
The proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall must not be allowed to proceed. It will destroy important cultural heritage sites.

To whom it may concern,
I opposed the Warragamba Dam wall raising because it will affect our World Heritage and cultural sites.
It will also impact wildlife. Habitat for endangered species such as the Regent Honeyeater must be protected.

To whom it may concern,
i am a resident of Blue Mountains and a keen bush walker and member of the Springwood Bushwalker Club. I have had the opportunity to explore many of the precious corners of this extraordinary and precarious region. The development of the floodplain with the proposed raising of the dam wall will deeply compromise the integrity of the World Heritage area by inundating rivers, drowning habitats for endangered regent Honeyeaters, koala colonies and our last emu population. Given the devastation of more than 80% of the World Heritage Area in 2019-2020 bushfires it is crucial that we preserve what we have remaining. Furthermore, respectful genuine consultation with traditional landowners have not been undertaken and there is no recognition of the estimated potential 1000+ cultural heritage sites that would be inundated. The reputations of the SMEC engineering and other contractors are dubious. Raising the dam wall would be a clear breach of our international obligations to protect the World Heritage values of the area. Please stop this proposal.

To whom it may concern,
SSI-8841 | Submission from Dr Kelvin Knox on the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall
Executive Summary
Upstream inundation caused by the Dam proposal would cause irreversible damage to Aboriginal cultural heritage, threatened species, wild rivers, and risks to the listing of the Greater Blue Mountains as a World Heritage Area.
Please accept this submission as an objection to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
Brief introductory profile
I have lived in Darug country in the Blue Mountains since 1998. My doctoral research, on the design and development of Aboriginal community service organisations, involved extensive fieldwork to locate Aboriginal sites in the Blue Mountains. This approach aimed to be physically present at the sites and obtain a vicarious sense of Aboriginal people's life, organisation and heritage. After gaining my doctorate in 2007, I undertook a study in archaeology, and I continue to be mentored by some archaeologists and Aboriginal people. My work with Aboriginal communities and organisations spans over 30 years.
Heritage
There are many reasons for society to preserve heritage. For instance, the enriching of our lives, maintaining a sense of cultural identity, conserving scarce or non-renewable historical places and objects, and as a historical record for future generations. Heritage provides a powerful sense of a people’s tradition, identity and place in the world.
Aboriginal Heritage of the Blue Mountains: Recent Research and Reflections, a 2019 publication by respected researchers, historians, archaeologists, and local Aboriginal people highlight that:
• At the foot of the Blue Mountains, New South Wales, human occupation is dated up to 50,000 years ago.
• In 1788, the way of life for Aboriginal people living in the Mountains and surroundings irrevocably changed. However, their cultural heritage handed down from ancient generations has remained in the form of occupation sites, art, artefacts, grinding grooves, modified trees, stone arrangements and other physical traces of their presence in the landscape. Their heritage includes language, stories, memories, associations and ceremonies.
• The Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA) is one large gallery of Aboriginal sites and culture. The Mountains’ cultural landscape is rich in story and meaning. Aboriginal people’s living culture in the Mountains has spiritual, historical, social, scientific and educational values for humanity.
• One significant reflection is that given the Blue Mountains region is part of a World Heritage-listed area, it is puzzling why the Aboriginal heritage of the Mountains and surrounding places has not received greater recognition and protection.
• Places with Aboriginal cultural heritage values can be protected through a declaration as an Aboriginal Place under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. The Act provides special recognition and protection to the Aboriginal cultural landscape. There is a strong case for the GBMWHA being declared as an Aboriginal Place.
Raising the Dam wall will have an irrecoverable and lasting adverse impact on Aboriginal people and wider society. Raising the Dam will be particularly devastating to the Gundungurra people. In their words (‘Prologue’ in Aboriginal Heritage of the Blue Mountains):
Our ancestors lived and walked on Burragorang land for many thousands of years. We are talking about real people who made their lives in the valley; a living, breathing history and culture of Dreaming trails, paintings, carving sites, waterholes, grave sites, scarred trees, and much more.
Sadly, some of our culture has been lost to time and ‘progress’; flooded and hidden behind the Warragamba Dam wall and beneath the waters of Lake Burragorang. Access to what culture we know of is still highly restricted, if not completely forbidden, which is truly devastating. A lot of people argue that we all need to make way for progress and development – a new story – regardless of the cost to our environment and history. Our Gundungurra country is still an important story and some of this story is included in this book, as are some of the stories of our Aboriginal neighbours.
Our story – the land, people and culture – is at risk again with the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. We are deeply concerned that this will be the beginning of the end of our culture and history. We have already lost access to so much of our history, much of which we can only read about in books like this one. From where we stand, and where many of my brothers and sisters stand, as contemporary Aboriginal people, we think we have already lost enough. We have sacrificed enough, and we cannot lose the precious little heritage we have left. We know that our Aboriginal neighbours, the Dharawal, Wiradjuri, Eora, Darug and Darkinjung people, and many other people, share our concerns.
Our place – which we share with you – is still a cultural landscape filled with story and heritage. Like our ancestors cared for country, we want it acknowledged, respected and preserved for our descendants and society. We ask that you respect our living culture.
Summary of cultural and environmental impacts and concerns
The NSW Government has many responsibilities including public works, conservation and management of non-renewal resources, environmental protection, and the provision of community services.
In discharging its duties, such as major public works, the Government has a responsibility to practice due diligence through modelling scenarios (i.e. alternatives to raising the Dam wall) and conducting thorough economic, community, cultural and environmental impact assessments before it proceeds with projects such as raising of the Dam. A key responsibility is to protect cultural heritage.
Below are some cultural and environmental impacts and concerns for the NSW Government to consider:
Failures of the EIS
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. For example:
• There are concerns about the engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) that undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project, SMEC has an established history of abusing Indigenous rights, recently being barred from/by the World Bank.
• Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage.
• Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
• No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the Dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS. Experts, such as Chas Keys, have said the Dam raising project is flawed and should not proceed.
• Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
World Heritage and cultural heritage sites placed at risk
The GBMWHA 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 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 GBMWHA, would be inundated by the Dam project. This includes:
• the Kowmung River: a 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
• some 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.
The Commonwealth Government has estimated that at least 1,500 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites would be inundated by a raised Dam wall.
Gundungurra people have not given free, prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal
Over 1,541 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.
Legislative issues
Seven layers of legislative protection are afforded to the areas that a raised Dam wall would inundate and destroy in the GBMWHA.
The assessment undermines the legislation which is the foundation of environmental protection in NSW. Approval of the project would set a dangerous precedent for Australia’s World Heritage and National Park protections.
Alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall
The NSW Government intends to house 134,000 new residents on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain over the next 30 years, facilitated in part by the Dam raising.
On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream 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. People and assets will still be at risk.
There are many alternative options to raising the Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities; for example, building flood evacuation roads and reducing flood plain development. A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. Assessment of alternatives does not cons

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of Cammeray and a frequent visitor to the Blue Mountains National Park and I object to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for the following reasons -
Systematic failures of the EIS
• 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.
• Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
• Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
• Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
• No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
• 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.
World Heritage and cultural sites under attack
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 speciesdiversity 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.
Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed
• Over 1541 identified cultural heritage siteswould 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.
Alternatives to raising Warragamba Dam wall have not been considered
• There are many alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
• Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. Any assessment of alternatives does not take into account the economic benefits that would offset the initial cost of implementation.
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my opposition to the raising the Warragamba Wall.
I am a keen bush walker and have explored the this region many times since the 1960s, as a child.
This is a unique environment and part of a rapidly diminishing wilderness in NSW.
I realise there have been problems related to decisions to build residential areas on flood plains in Western Sydney. Sydney's growth presents many challenges for governements but the push for growth at all costs is not a viable option for our nation any more.
The destruction of wild places not only damages our environment but the quality of all our lives, and those of future generations.
Once destroyed our natural environment cannot be reclaimed.
These are hard decisions, but at some point governments need to take a stand and protect what little natural wilderness we have left.
If there were no other solutions to the problem of flood mitigation in the Hawkesbury-Nepean then it might be reasonable to proceed with the Dam extension.
But this is not the case and I would urge the government to resist any plan which produces so much environmental destruction.

To whom it may concern,
Once the Dam Wall is raised there will be a push to increase water storage. Hence the permanent destruction of natural and cultural heritage. At the same time developers will move in and build on arable/ flood prone land. This is a zero sum game and the plan needs to be rejected.

To whom it may concern,
My wife and I have been residents in the Blue Mountains for many years. We have experienced the existing beauty of living close to the wliderness area set to be indundated if the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam goes ahead.

We ask the NSW Goverment to reconsider the raising of the dam wall because it will destroy our National Park, native fauna and flora and significant Aboriginal artifacts and cultural symbols. We are also very concerned that the flooding of this area will endanger the World Heritage listing and have implications for other National Parks.
The modelling behind the proposed wall raising has failed to include any economic and flood benefits and has been described as "flawed" and should not be proceeded with.
We totally agree with this assessment.
Additionally we are very concerned that futrure generations will lose so much.

To whom it may concern,
My name is Lynda Janne Toohey. I live at 23 Prince Street,Glenbrook 2773 I am writing in relation to project SSI-8441 . I have not made any political donations in the last two years.
I am a long term resident of the Blue Mountains. I regularly go bushwalking in the Blue Mountains and do not want to see any of its habitat destroyed, particularly for the sake of a project that has no modelling on the flood or economic benefits of raising the dam wall. Over 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, 5 700 hectares of National Parks and 1 300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would be inundated with no modelled benefit. Habitat of endangered species would be drowned if the dam wall was raised and at least 1 500 Indigenous cultural heritage sites would be inundated.
The environmental surveys that have been carried out to assess the results of raising the dam wall are totally inadequate. I believe just 3 ½ hours were spent looking for koalas, a single day was spent assessing the impacts to aquatic life, including the platypus which is endangered, and only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage and the author of the report only spent a day in the field. Only 7.5 metres of the 17 metre increase in the dam wall has been considered an “impact area”. This is a totally inadequate study for any project, let alone one of this size and importance.
The NSW government intends to house 134 000 new residents on the Hawkesbury- Nepean floodplain over the next 30 years. I agree that new housing is needed but this is not the place to build it. Raising of the dam wall will not stop all flooding and any new housing is this area would still be at risk. In the most recent floods most of the floodwater has come from Erskine Creek, Glenbrook Creek, Lapstone Creek, South Creek etc. All of these creeks enter the Nepean River BELOW Warragamba Dam so raising the dam wall will be no use in stopping all flooding.
I totally oppose raising the dam wall as I can see no benefits but can see numerous adverse effects.