Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
i write in opposition of the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam.
The proposal is flawed because it will not adequately achieve the desired outcome of flood-proofing the areas beneath the dam wall. This is because at least 45% of the floodwaters across the Hawkesbury Nepean flood plain are derived from downstream of Warragamba Dam.
The adverse consequences of inundation of vast areas of the World Heritage Area, short term and long term, are also unjustifed and inappropriate. This area is significant at an international level, proven by the rigorous evaluation and ongoing monitoring that is associated with its recognition as World Heritage. these places are few, and becoming fewer. They must be protected, always.
i am most fearful that this proposal is being advanced by people unfamiliar with the value of this area. People that occupy urban places and think urban, that think only of growth and profit, of cities being the only option for the future. Nothing could be more wrong. I have walked this area from Kanangra Boyd to Katoomba and spent many hours appreciating its magnificence. My qualification is environmental health so I understand and take the time to examine the biodiversity found in this area. It is diverse, abundant and rich. Because of current water catchment protections it is only slightly impacted by humanity.
It seems to me that this proposal is more to do with assisiting the continuing urbanisation of western Sydney. The Penrith CBD is an example. it is, with hindsight, in the wrong location. The council fights for its increasing growth irrespoective of flood vulnerability so that it competes against other western Sydney city centres. but the centre can be planned to shift east and so increase flood resilience.
There are far more appropriate responses to flood mitigation. These include enhanced road evacuation routes, maintaining the dam's water levels lower so they can hold back floodwaters, implementing water restrictions and mitigation measures more aggressively to reduce the need for water stores and greater use of the desalination plant.
For all of the above reasons, the proposal to raise the dam wall should not be approved.
This project, with its profound capacity to compromise the World Heritage area, will also be assessed under a system of planning, and a political environment, which lacks the public's trust and confidence.
It is plainly the reality that the government is conflicted in determining such a matter because of the excessive focus that is given to growth and urbanisation as well as profit and taxes. The environment, the long term resilience of the planet and the uniqueness of the World Heritage Area on the world stage must instead be primary.
For these reasons, the assessment process for this proposal needs to be elevated to a higher level of assessment with abundany transparency and greater independence. A bespoke and sophisticated and scientific lens needs to be applied to the determination of this matter.

To whom it may concern,
Please save our valleys and our wildlife!! The amount of bush land that will be flooded with the raising of the dam is too much. So many walking tracks will also be flooded and unusable Tbis World Heritage National Park needs saving not flooding.

To whom it may concern,
The dam raising should be stridently opposed by anyone with any concern for the future. It is well-known that the raising is an issue of developers profiteering on their push for rezoning.
Developer profit margins are *NOT* an issue for the wider public good, no matter how much they present their obscene levels of profit as just a happy side-effect of responding to (an eternal) housing crisis. It's like building more and wider roads. It can feel like it's responding to traffic congestion but everyone knows it's about getting more people to new development zones, and the old levels of congestion soon returns. So it is with the developments that rely on this dam raising. They are responding to one need alone -- greed. And the costs are many.
The more important issue, of interest to greater numbers of people, are things like the flooding of bushland, the creation of even larger Urban Heat Island effects in a region that already suffers from it, the creation of future slums in poorly serviced Oran Park-like horrorscapes... and for what? So a few can proft at the expense of the many. As for the UHI, note that Penrith is devasted by storms and floods that it never used to have, and on 4th January 2020 was the hottest place on earth with a temperature of almost 49C (and that was at 3pm). These effects will never be undone, but can be made worse by thoughtless "developer" greed. These are real effects. Do we want to exacerbate them? Or should developers lose this particularly well-lobbied assault on the public and its future?
Once, business profts were made on the basis of "entrepreneurship". You apply good judgement, take a risk, and if it pays off the risk justifies the profit. Of course, that still needs to be contextualised by threats to wider community need, which came under the headings of "duty of care" and "public accountability". All 3 concepts seem to have disappeared. "Entrepreneurship" is abandoned. The developers bought the land cheap, with no risk whatsoever. Instead, *lobbying* removes that risk. This is just full-steam ahead for massive, risk-free truckloads of money. And "public accountability" and "duty of care"? It means nothing. They build it. They move on. The problem is someone else's. A lot of someones. And a lot of environmental effects that really should be more accurately assessed in terms of future costs. Costs of loss of bushland? Costs of UHI effects? Costs of being locked into a mortgage in a hideous and unserviced landscape as it degrades into a middle-class version of a slum neighbourhood? That is not developer cost. The developers have gone. That is everyone else's burdern. This is not simple anti-"development" diatribe. The proprosed "development" is destructive and particularly so due to ecological and environmental and, yes, even lifestyle effects that bite savagely into our future.
It is important to consider on top of this that the effect of moving forward is that there is no retreat. It cannot be unwound. The cost of not moving ahead is trivial by comparison. Some rich developers miss out on this one (of many) windfalls because they forgot to attend Entrepreneurship 101 and headed straight where the big bucks are -- lobbying.
This is a wrong decision and everyone knows it. Even the developers surely "know" it. But, you know, ensuring that profit stay foremost benefits from burying that opinion.
It's time to be honest. Raising the wall is about one -- and only one -- real objective. "Developer" profit. The costs are buried in some financial presentation of them. Those are not the costs that will be faced by everyone else and by future generations. It really is that terrible a decision.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 36 years and love bushwalking. I have been walking in wild parts of the Mountains, such as the Kowmung River and have walked from Kanangra Walls to Carlon's Farm, as it was. I have walked regularly in the National Park between Woodford and Oak Flats and know what it is like to have access to the wild flowers and trees that are in flower at present. the raising of the dam wall threatens eucalyptus species diversity eg the Camden White Gum, which has already been recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area's World Heritage listing.
Raising the dam wall will impact on all of these areas flooding them from time to time, but leaving the foliage dead after the water backs up from the dam wall. I oppose raising the dam wall for the impacts on our precious bush which is able to breath in so much of our carbon dioxide, and release oxygen for us and all living animals.
I am also concerned that many of the identified Aboriginal cultural heritage sites would inundated by the Dam proposal.
Alternative options should be looked at. I have read that on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of and below the Warragamba Dam catchment. So however high the dam wall is, it won't be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream. It is inevitable that there will be other floods and the money set aside for raising the dam wall would be better spent on buying out people who are currently living in flood prone areas further down the river, who can't get insurance now anyway.
I join a growing group of people who oppose the raising of the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
The inadequacy of NSW Government's EIS would be laughable if it did not have such far-reaching, detrimental potential consequences. The integrity of the report is fundamentally flawed for a manifold of reasons including, but not limited to, a lack of modelling, inadequate threatened species surveys and no surveys performed following the catastrophic bushfires of 2019/20 which destroyed 80% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. The Federal Department of Energy and Environment have even acknowledged that raising the Dam wall would cause 'extensive and significant impacts'.
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall is just one of a long list of decisions made by this Liberal NSW Government that threatens our natural habitat. This particular project is especially concerning and potentially illegal as it is in breach of Article 4 of the World Heritage Convention.
I have a four year old son - what kind of world is he going to inherit? Will there be any natural environment left once the NSW Liberal government have finished?
I strongly oppose this project and will never vote Liberal again due to their appalling environment record.

To whom it may concern,
Having grown up in the beauty of the Blue Mountains this issue is close to my heart. I have fond memories of bush walks through the beautiful Leura Forest in my youth, trips out to Mount Hay, and the long walk to Mount Solitary and back. I was deeply saddened when more than 60 percent of the area was badly damaged during the bushfires 2 years ago. To learn that the state government intends to further damage this area of environmental and cultural importance is disheartening. This area should be the most protected in Australia being both a national park and World heritage listed. I ask you, if a protection is removed at the slightest inconvenience is really a protection?
If this area is to be damaged, surely the utmost care has been taken in assessing the environmental impact? The engineering firm the government hired, has failed on so many projects that it is barred from the world bank. It has failed to do a post bushfire field survey. It has failed to properly survey the area for aboriginal cultural heritage. It has failed to meet the guideline requirements on surveying threatened species. Finally, it has failed to model the effect on flood prevention and the economics of raising the wall. To do this irreversible destruction based on an environmental impact statement that has failed in so many ways is in itself a failure.
The EIS also failed to properly consider alternatives. 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. In addition, on average, only half the flood water actually comes from upstream of the dam so this “solution” wouldn’t prevent flooding in the downstream area.
I would finally like to point out that Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the dam proposal to proceed. In yet another failure, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has not appropriately assessed the cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members. This assessment has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS).
Do not fail the people of Australia and firmly oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam wall.

To whom it may concern,

I am strongly against the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam. I have bushwalked in the Kowmung River valley, which feeds into the lake behind the dam wall. The Kowmung is a wild river, and should be allowed to continue to flow freely. Raising the dam wall will raise the water level, which will damage the landscape, flora and fauna of this remarkable area. A wild river in a World Heritage area should not be damaged by this careless proposal. I strongly urge you to withdraw the proposal to raise the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to make a submission to oppose the dam raising re: project number SSI-8441. I oppose the dam raising as I live in the blue mountains and am a keen bush walker in the blue mountains. I feel raising the dam would be detrimental to the mountains environment as a raised dam wall would inundate and destroy seven layers of legislative protection in the greater blue mountains world heritage area.

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my opposition to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
I spend much of my spare time hiking in the Blue Mountains (which is where I live), and the thought of any inundation to pristine National Park causes me a great deal of distress.
There is no logic or sound reason for raising the wall. Too much is at stake. There are koalas, emus and Regent Honeyeaters in that area, which means their habitat will be drowned out by raising the dam wall. It is also a deep insult to those who went to great efforts to place the Greater Blue Mountains National Parks on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in November 2000; which required a 'solemn promise' to protect the area 'forever'. Forever means for eternity, not 16 years (i.e. when the NSW Govt decided to renege on this promise in 2016).
I therefore request that the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall be rejected, forever.

To whom it may concern,
I believe that raising the Warragambah Dam wall will not achieve the outcome required and will seriously damage the ecosystem of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. This includes but is not limited to flooding of aboriginal sacred sites.

To whom it may concern,
[email protected]

Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI8441 – Martin Brown, Blackheath NSW 2785

I object to the proposal.
• There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
• The proposal will have major negative impacts on the Blue Mountains National Park, its fauna and flora, aboriginal heritage sites, and the UNESCO World Heritage Listing
• The traditional owners have not given their consent to the proposal
• The proposal will not meet its stated aim of protecting properties built on the floodplain
• The proposal is inconsistent with environmental protection legislation in NSW. Approval of the proposal would set a dangerous precedent for NSW’s national park and threatened species protections, and for Australia’s World Heritage protections.

I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.

For many years I have enjoyed walking in the Blue Mountains National park as a visitor from Sydney . I have recently moved to the area with the assumption that the environmental protections offered by the parks World Heritages status would maintain the environment as it prescribes. I know many people employed in the tourism sector in this area. Their jobs depend on a protected environment and compliance with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. I submit that the Minister should bear in mind the following when considering whether to approve the raising of the dam wall.
There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
The severe fires during the 2019-20 summer devastated 81 per cent of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Despite the widespread acknowledgement throughout the community that the fires caused enormous loss of life to fauna and flora, the EIS includes no post-bushfire field surveys. This is seriously inadequate.

Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained. This is inadequate.

The assessment is based on just 3.5 hours looking for koalas and just one day assessing the impacts on aquatic life, including the threatened platypus. This is inadequate.

Only 27% of the area to be impacted by the proposal was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The author of the cultural heritage assessment spent just one day in the field.

SMEC Engineering, which undertook the proposal’s environmental and cultural assessments, has a poor record of working with indigenous people and has been banned from working on World Bank projects in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

The EIS contains no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of raising the dam wall.

The EIS considers that only 7.5 metres of the proposed 17 metre increase in the height of the dam wall will result in impacts upstream. This assumption is clearly unrelated to reality. The entire 17 metres should have been included in the assessment of the impacted area.

The proposal will negatively impact the World Heritage listing
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. The proposal will result in flooding of part of the area subject to World Heritage listing. The flooding will cause damage to natural and cultural values. The proposal therefore constitutes a breach of the undertakings made by both the NSW and Australian Governments and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

The proposal will flood an estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, including:
• the Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’ and protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974;
• unique eucalyptus species diversity recognised as having Outstanding Universal Value under the area’s World Heritage listing such as the Camden White Gum;
• a number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland;
• habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater, koala colonies and Sydney’s last Emu population.

The traditional owners have not given consent to the proposal
The Australian Government has estimated that the proposal will flood more than 1541 identified cultural heritage sites.

The Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have both crticised the quality of the proponent’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.

The proposal will not protect properties built on the floodplain
On average, 45% of floodwaters derive from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. No matter how high the dam wall is, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream as the dam wall will not impact floodwater coming down the Nepean River or the Colo River or other streams.

There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect floodplain communities, including levees, new flood evacuation routes, and reducing floodplain development. The EIS does not comprehensively assess alternative options.

Submission Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI-8441
Alex Williams, Lawson
I object to the proposal in the strongest terms.
There are four elements to my opposition:
1. Lack of strategic justification
2. Lack of project efficacy
3. Unacceptable impacts
4. Existence of alternative options

1. Lack of strategic justification (and lack of consultation)
There is a lack of strategic justification for this project. While the EIS is left to assess the residual impacts of the proposal, there has been no compelling case made for the project. It is contemptuous to only consult with the community on the residual impacts of the proposal via the EIS process. The hugely significant impacts of this proposal mean the strategic business case should scrutinised through a public exhibition process. We cannot trust the opaque processes of Cabinet to deal with the strategic justification of such as significant project.
2. Raising dam wall will not effectively mitigate flood risk
Only 40% of the Hawkesbury-Nepean catchment lies upstream of Warragamba Dam. Further, future weather patterns will be very unpredictable meaning current thinking about flood mitigation might be shown to be inaccurate. For these reasons, we cannot be sure that the proposal will effectively mitigate against floods. To spend such a large amount of money with no guarantee of efficacy is fiscally irresponsible.
Further, if the project provides a false sense and security and justification for an increase in development potential on the floodplains of the Hawkesbury-Nepean, then it will ultimately result in more people being in danger from flood events.
3. Unacceptable impacts
The impact of the proposal on natural systems and indigenous heritage is simply unacceptable. When the Blue Mountains gained World Heritage status, it represented a solemn commitment by all levels of government to protect the special qualities of the area. To disregard and put at risk our World Heritage status is unacceptable.
We cannot accept that such significant impacts must be suffered when there is no compelling case for the proposal.
4. EIS has not considered alternative options
Good governance and the Burra Charter dictates that alternative options must be exhaustively investigated before a deciding to proceed with this proposal.
i) Buying back high risk property
One option to effectively reduce the risk to life and property from flooding is to buy out high risk properties, returning/converting them to agricultural or recreational uses, or natural reserves.
Locating significant agriculture, recreation and conservation areas close to Sydney would provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits for the region.
This option has not been fully investigated or costed. A comparison of this option against the costs and benefits of the dam raising proposal must be undertaken and made public.
ii) Utilising existing storage capacity and desalination plant
Another option to manage flood risk is to utilise existing storage capacity during flood events. Sydney currently has an underutilised desalination plant. Better use of this facility to provide for Sydney’s drinking water needs would enable the existing storage capacity at Warragamba to be left available for storage during flood events.
This option has not been fully investigated or costed. As it involves better use and management of existing infrastructure, with no major investment in new infrastructure required, it would be fiscally irresponsible not to investigate this potentially much cheaper option.

To whom it may concern,
Having walked and explored both the Wollondilly Valley and Comung River I am deeply concered about the propsed elevation of the Warragamba dam wall. These areas will be inundated and destroyed causing irreperable environmental damage. The past and present environmental stewardship displayed by the NSW and Australian Federal governments is appalling and this proposed project is another example of destruction of wild habitats for short term financial gains by developers. Can we please stop detroying our countries heritage and future to line the pockets of developers? Surely there are other locations where housing can be added to Sydney with less environmental cost!

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing in respect to the above project, which I object to.

I have owned a home in Katoomba for 18 years, and have been a regular visitor to the mountains for 35 years for bushwalking and other recreational activities.

I oppose the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam for the following reasons:
• The potential loss of World Heritage status for the Greater Blue Mountains area;
• the further damage to the indigenous cultural significance of the area; and
• the destruction to both the natural environment and the habitat for endangered species.


I ask you to consider alternatives to raising the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
As a person who walks frequently in the Blue Mountains I am appalled at the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam.
I consider the integrity of the environmental assessment is flawed at numerous levels. Threatened species surveys are inadequate and expert reports have not been not sought.
There has been no substantive evaluation of the impact of the devastating 2019-2020 fires with no surveys having been undertaken to assess the impact of the fires.
Furthermore, the Environmental Impact Statement does not include any modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits deriving from the proposal to raise the dam wall.
An estimated 65 kms of wildreness rivers and 5700 hectares of National Parks, 1300 hectares of which lie within the Greater Blue Mountains World Area would be inundated by this Dam Project.
This is precious wilderness area which includes the Kowmung River recognised as a wild river under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. It is also home to unique eucalyptus species and contains a significant number of threatened ecolological communities which provide habitats for critically endagered species.
A significant number of Aboriginal cultural heritage sites have been identified in the area, yet the cultural value of these have not been adequately assessed in any meaningful way. There has been no serious attempt to engage in a consultative process with the Gundungurra people and their informed consent has not been sought.
No alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall have been comprehensively addressed in the EIS.
Moreover, it is estimated that 45% of floodwaters come from outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. In truth, the height of the dam is irrelevant and raising it is futile as it will not mitigate flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
I consider that this EIS is seriously compromised by its failure to take into account the significant issues raised above. To proceed, given these impacts is fundamentally an act of environmental and cultural vandalism.
I would strongly urge you not to proceed with the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains since 2003 and enjoy walking in the iconic bushland when I have the opportunity. I also have a deep respect for the indigenous cultural heritage which is intrinsically linked to the Greater Blue Mountains Wilderness.
I write this submission in relation to the proposal by NSW state government to raise the Warragamba dam wall. I am opposed to the proposal on the following grounds:
The EIS is fundamentally flawed and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision making by the Minister for Planning on the following grounds:
SMEC Engineering have a long history of abusing Indigenous rights and have recently been barred from the World Bank. Why would a company with such a record be chosen to undertake this EIS?
No post-bushfire field surveys have been taken, despite the long and devastating impact on catchment and surrounding region.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Threatened species reports were insufficient.
There was no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising within the EIS.
World Heritage & Cultural sites:
BM World Heritage area is UNESCO listed in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind (I would add, for all species that occupy it). Raising the dam wall will cause irreversible damage to natural and cultural values and this would be a clear breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention. With a reputation already severely tarnished on the world stage in relation to all things environmental, Australia cannot afford to keep up these unforgivable blunders.
If the wall is raised, an estimated 65km of wild rivers and 5700 hectares of National Park (1300 within the World Heritage Area) would be inundated. This would include:
The Kowmung River - a declared 'wild river' protected under the NP&W Act 1974.
Unique eucalypt species (e.g. Camden White Gum) and threatened ecological communities (e.g. Grassy Box Woodland).
Habitat for endangered and critically endangered (CE) fauna, including CE Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's last Emu population.
Gundungarra Traditional Owners have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the dam proposal to proceed.
Alternative options to raising the dam wall were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream catchment of Warragamba Dam. No matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. The valley is a floodplain and building residential estates on floodplains is not responsible practice.
For existing residents on the floodplain, a combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation. These approaches will give the desired mitigation benefits, without destroying pristine wilderness and irreplacable Aboriginal Cultural Sites.
Development of the floodplain needs to be curbed. This used to be the food bowl for Sydney and what remains of farming land should be protected for this purpose.

To whom it may concern,
To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains since 2003 and enjoy walking in the iconic bushland when I have the opportunity. I also have a deep respect for the indigenous cultural heritage which is intrinsically linked to the Greater Blue Mountains Wilderness.
I write this submission in relation to the proposal by NSW state government to raise the Warragamba dam wall. I am opposed to the proposal on the following grounds:
The EIS is fundamentally flawed and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision making by the Minister for Planning on the following grounds:
SMEC Engineering have a long history of abusing Indigenous rights and have recently been barred from the World Bank. Why would a company with such a record be chosen to undertake this EIS?
No post-bushfire field surveys have been taken, despite the long and devastating impact on catchment and surrounding region.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Threatened species reports were insufficient.
There was no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising within the EIS.
World Heritage & Cultural sites:
BM World Heritage area is UNESCO listed in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind (I would add, for all species that occupy it). Raising the dam wall will cause irreversible damage to natural and cultural values and this would be a clear breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention. With a reputation already severely tarnished on the world stage in relation to all things environmental, Australia cannot afford to keep up these unforgivable blunders.
If the wall is raised, an estimated 65km of wild rivers and 5700 hectares of National Park (1300 within the World Heritage Area) would be inundated. This would include:
The Kowmung River - a declared 'wild river' protected under the NP&W Act 1974.
Unique eucalypt species (e.g. Camden White Gum) and threatened ecological communities (e.g. Grassy Box Woodland).
Habitat for endangered and critically endangered (CE) fauna, including CE Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's last Emu population.
Gundungarra Traditional Owners have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the dam proposal to proceed.
Alternative options to raising the dam wall were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS.
On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream catchment of Warragamba Dam. No matter how high the dam wall is constructed, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley. The valley is a floodplain and building residential estates on floodplains is not responsible practice.
For existing residents on the floodplain, a combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation. These approaches will give the desired mitigation benefits, without destroying pristine wilderness and irreplacable Aboriginal Cultural Sites.
Development of the floodplain needs to be curbed. This used to be the food bowl for Sydney and what remains of farming land should be protected for this purpose.

To whom it may concern,
I am totally against raising the height of the dam wall. No more development in the catchment area. The traditional Owners have not consented to this.
DISGRACEFUL plan!!!!!!

To whom it may concern,
Thank you for giving NSW residents the opportunity to comment on the project of raising the Warragamba dam wall.
I have been living in the Blue Mountains since 1998 and was so proud and full of hope when the Greater Blue Mountains National Parks were listed on the UNESCO World Heritage in 2000. This recognition and its implications were tremendous and of great significance for the future of the parks.
The Warragamba retention dam is large enough as it is. Its construction has already flooded enough land as it is. The main purpose of the Burragorang Lake is to supply drinking water to Sydney, not to mitigate potential flooding in the Nepean River surroundings. The raising of the dam would destroy native habitat and its inhabitants, which are supposed to be already protected, and protected forever. It will submerge, destroy and prevent access to sites which are significant to the culture of the local Aboriginal people, and to all Australians.
I am amazed, sad and angered that such a destructive project was ever conceived, after the recognition UNESCO gave to the Greater Blue Mountains National Parks.
I am totally opposed to this project. It would be an environmental and cultural disaster and is not even likely to prevent future flooding of downstream areas. It would also have negative consequences internationally, particularly on the tourism economy.
I thank you for taking the above into account and for taking the time to read this submission.