Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I am constantly surprised why I am shocked at the blatant ignorance and violence that is perpetrated on country in Australia, but I shouldn't be. Since colonisation it's always been the same and here we are again with this proposal to raise the Warragamba dam.
Local Gundungurra traditional owners yet again having their ancestors and life flow from country stolen from them should this go ahead. Harm the country, harm the people, indigenous and non-indigenous alike.
And just as importantly threaten huge ecological communities; which is of course, the behaviour that is leading to massive species extinction, including our own.
There is no word to express the depth of my sadness and disgust should this project be approved.
Please please reconsider, if you can't do this for others do it for your own children.

To whom it may concern,
After gaining heritage listing, who would have thought that the Blue Mountains and the plains before the Blue Mountains would need written submissions from the people for their protection in my life time. This frustration bleeds over to the appalling process and land grab produced from the decision to build Badgery's Creek Airport.
There is enough going on for the community not have to fight for environmental gains previously decided. Sydney certainly sprawls west with little regard for the culture or the environment.
Sustainable developments and business opportunity should shared and developed with other major NSW towns not simply brick out the Sydney Basin for private/developer interests.

To whom it may concern,
Sutherland Shire Environment Centre is a not-for-profit community organisation – our members have been actively involved in advocating for the environment in the Sutherland Shire and our surrounding bio-regions since 1991. We welcome the opportunity to make a submission on the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
SSEC opposes the raising of the dam wall for the following reasons.

World Heritage
For past 8 years, SSEC has worked with other organisations to build a case for including the Royal National Park, Heathcote National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area on the World Heritage List. We know first-hand the challenges of preparing reports and winning support. We know the value of World Heritage sites. Once the evidence is gathered and support found, it is not just a breach of national and international undertakings, it is criminal to wantonly destroy sections of WH areas such as a raised dam wall would do to thousands of hectares in the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Already-at-risk flora (e.g Shale Sandstone Transition Forests) and fauna (e.g.Regent Honeyeaters) species within the World Heritage area will be further threatened. And this on top of flooding wilderness rivers in the broader region.

Report failings
The SMEC report is severely deficient in its treatment of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage – no significant consultation was undertaken with Gundungarra community members, and less than a third of the impact area was assessed for damage to cultural heritage. Such failures have already been condemned bythe Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites

The report is equally flawed in its analysis of threatened species, the economic modelling of the benefits of raising the height of the wall, and viable alternatives to raising the wall.

On behalf of SSEC and its members, I strongly urge the State Government to seek alternatives to raising the wall of Warragamba Dam.

To whom it may concern,
As a resident of the Blue Mountains for my entire life, I strongly oppose the raising of the dam wall.
Raising the dam wall will severely impact the habitats of many threatened species, it will destroy huge areas of bush land in times of flood and these will not recover. These areas are listed as World heritage, but the raising of the dam wall will destroy this important place and will severely impact threatened species such as the Regent Honeyeater, and some unique species of Eucalyptus.
In the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday it was alarming to read and article stating that the assessments of the impact of the wall on the flora and fauna by experts had been doctored without their knowledge. This is simply corruption. The experts must be recognised as such and their reports suggest that the wall should not be raised as it will cause irreparable damange. Listen to them!
importantly, if the dam wall is raised, First Nations people will lose over 1500 irreplaceable cultural sites and places sacred to them. This is traditional Aboriginal land. It belongs to them. There has been enough destruction of sacred sites across this country without unnecessary further vandalism. We must respect the Elders past and present. If they have not consented, the changes to the dam wall should not go ahead.

To conclude, the raising of the dam wall will cause more harm than good - both in terms of the environmental and cultural impacts it will have on the area. This is a pristine place of great beauty and importance. It must be protected. The government must consider alternatives to this plan of raising the wall.

To whom it may concern,
As a 25 + year resident of the Blue Mountains (once part time, now full time) I am writing to object the proposal to raise the wall at Warragamba Dam.

My most immediate concerns is the flooding (even if only 'intermittent' of around 65 kilometres of wild rivers and thousands of hectares that fall within our prized UNESCO World Heritage listed lands and Blue Mountains National Parks. The World Heritage Listing recognises this area for its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. While trashing this recognition, the proposal clearly constitutes a breach of the undertakings made by both the NSW and Australian Governments and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

The Minister for Western Sydney (and portfolios including tourism) and now deputy Premier Stuart Ayres appears to be a lonely advocate for this project and motivation seems to be driven by a desire to bring yet more development to the flood plains to the north of Penrith. Studies show that raising the wall will not in fact mitigate flooding or make these plains 'safe' for development as flood waters will still be flowing through the Nepean and Colo Rivers and other mountains-fed water ways. Even so, the EIS does not adequately consider alternatives that could protect floodplain communities, including levees, new flood evacuation routes, and reducing floodplain development.

The Australian Government has estimated that the proposal will flood more than 1541 identified cultural heritage sites. Cultural assessment reports appear woefully inadequate and have not been developed in appropriate consultation with Gundungurra community members. The traditional owners have not given their consent to the proposal

Just as cultural assessments are inadequate, so too are the Environmental Impact Statements. Wildlife assessments are woeful, particularly in light of no post-fire assessment after the devastating bushfires of 2019-20. Already endangered species and habitats are under more pressure than ever as a result of those fires and changing climate.

Finally, the EIS considers the upstream impact of a 7.5 metre increase in the dam wall.... not the proposed 17 metres. This alone, disconnects the EIS from reality and makes complete nonsense of the so-called process.

In summary I object to this proposal because of:

- Major negative impacts on the Blue Mountains National Park, its fauna and flora, Aboriginal heritage sites, and the UNESCO World Heritage Listing
- Serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
- Not meeting its stated aim of protecting properties built on the floodplain
- It is inconsistent with environmental protection legislation in NSW.
- It sets a dangerous precedent to protection for our national parks, threatened species and our World Heritage.

The proposal is unnecessary and unbecoming. We can be better than this. Please stop it.

To whom it may concern,
I protest against the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by 14 metres and possibly 17 metres.
My reasons are:
1. an area of 5,700 ha of Word Heritage National Park and 1,800 has of Declared Wilderness will be indundated and thereby the endangered species will be destroyed.
2. the Environmental Impact Study was most inadequate because only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural heritage
3. there are a number of threatened ecological communities which will be destroyed
4. habitat for the critically endangered regent honeyeater and the emu population will be threatened.
5. any new residential developments built down stream of the Dam will be inundated by flood waters from the Colo River and other rivers. it is estimated that 45% of the floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the Warragamba Dall catchment area.
6. residents of these new properties will not be able to get house insurance because the Insurance Council has advised against the raising of the Dam wall.
7. increasing the Dam wall Height will not provide any additional water for consumption by Greater Sydney residents and businesses.
8. although I am not indigenous, I view the fact that 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal with alarm and deep concern. As a white Australian, this heritage belongs to me too. The destruction of these sites would be similar to the destruction of the indigenous sites in the Jukuun Gorge in Western Australia, which received world-wide condemnation.
In conclusion, I consider that the money planned for the raising of the Dam walll should be ear-marked for buying out properties on the flood plain below the wall, as they should never have been built there in the first place.

To whom it may concern,
I am not responding to the detail of the EIS - how many days or kilometers were devoted to the search for platypus or koalas, for example. Those things are important, but there is always the danger that they become smokescreens for fundamental and basic principles of honesty and common sense.
The basic principle of honesty is that one doesn’t declare national parks and wildernesses and rejoice in them being placed on the World Heritage Register, and then force people to fight endlessly for their protection. These places are special and recognized as such. How could one even contemplate damaging the Kowmung River? Why was it ever declared ‘protected’ if the need for housing 100 km away means it is no longer protected? There are some things that can be changed to suit changing needs - tax rates, for example. But some things should not be subject to such change, and commitment to the protection of wild places is in that category. It is dishonest to treat them otherwise.
The principle of common sense is more complicated in this case. I understand that people have to have somewhere to live, and that creates a problem for governments the solution to which I don’t pretend to have. But I’m not convinced that it makes sense to solve the problem by spending large sums of money to raise a dam wall to provide some protection - not enough, we are told, to satisfy the insurance sector - from flooding of unbuilt houses, even if doing so didn’t require flooding ‘protected’ World Heritage wilderness. It does not take much imagination to see a future of expensive ‘flood remediation’ measures of the sort with which Western Sydney is all too familiar.
Flooding aside, it makes no sense to build houses to the horizon in Western Sydney. If the housing being built in south-western Sydney is anything to go by, they will be grey-brick, grey-tile to the horizon, so close to each other you couldn’t plant a tree even if you wanted to, where temperatures get over 45 degrees in summer. In south-western Sydney they will surround an airport; in north-western Sydney they will be next to a river which will flood no matter how high the dam wall. Yes, people have to have somewhere to live, but it makes no sense to offer them that, and certainly not to flood the Kowmung to do so.
In this case both honesty and common sense tell us that this project should not go ahead, regardless of the intricacies of an EIS. As I wrote this submission a very brief and innocuous thunderstorm passed over. The result has become all too common - hours without power. Fix the basic services for existing houses before you wreck very special places to build new ones.

To whom it may concern,
My name is Richard Madigan. I live in Wentworth Falls in the Blue Mountains. have 3 kids and 2 granddaughthers.
I am very active in and around the Blue Mountains - bushwalking, overnight camping, mountain biking and occassionally 4 wheel driving.
I believe we are priveleged to have such a pristine environment on our doorstep and for this area to be acknowledged as a World Heritage really highlights that privelege.
Being conferred with the World Heritage classification acknowledges this area to be of outstanding and universal value. By accepting this classification, we - Australia and the Australian people - are committing to protect this area for the world to enjoy in perpetuity.
The raising of the Warragamba wall by 14 metres will violate that committment. It is extremely obvious - and well researched and reported - that this measure will have a very negative impact on flora and fauna and indigenous sites within the catchment area. I find it upsetting that the new EIS has not been done with honesty and integrity - this is a document with massive deliberate ommissions.
My pet concern relates to a long-held dream I have of one day observing the Regent Honeyeater in the wild (and just maybe having one or both of my granddaughters by my side). They are already listed as critically endangered. Changing their habitat will most likely seal their fate and put an end to my dream.
But looking at the big picture, there is so much more that will be lost if this plan goes ahead - 5,700 Hectare of National Parks and 65 km of wilderness rivers will be under threat and have their ecology changed, as will the unique eucalyptus species diversity (such as the Camden White Gum) and the Grassy Box Woodland communities.
Finally there is the real possibility that our World Heritage listing will be impacted - yet this is something we signed up to for life in 2000. What an indictment on our government and people that would be!
Please, reject this proposal!

To whom it may concern,
Please do not allow the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall, it will irrevocably damage important cultural & conservation areas. We have taken so much away from the First Nations people already, it is unfair to persist with this action.

To whom it may concern,
I feel a real connection to the blue mountains having spent extended periods of time with my grandparents as a child in this unique wilderness area and more recently having walked, climbed and photograped in the area.
I was devasted to hear of this proposal to extend the Warragamba Dam wall and write to object to this destruction of these many unique and World Heritage listed sites where so many alternatives exist.
In making your decision please consider the following facts.
Failures of the EIS (Systamtic)
• The integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning.
• The 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.
World Heritage sites will be destroyed/severely impacted
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.
Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given Free, Prior and Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed.
• 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.
There are many alternatives to raising the Warragamba Wall.
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 have grave concerns about plans to raise the Warragamba Dam wall and on reflection of the facts I oppose the proposal for the following reasons:
1. I am a member of active bushwalker (and a member of Sydney Bush Walkers) and frequently walk in areas that will be adversely affected by the proposed raising of the wall dam.
2. The Insurance Council of Australia, the peak insurance body, has dropped its support for the proposed raising of the dam wall. It has recommended the NSW Government buy back the land it sold to developers because even with the raising of the dam wall, this will not rule out the possibility of future floods. If insurance companies are unwilling to insure property owners even after the dam wall is raised, this will leave the government with the obligation of bailing out flood affected residents. I do not think the government should be facilitating the development of an area with the full knowledge that it will be required to grant future emergency aid. Even if with a government bailout, this will not remedy the trauma and possible life-threatening situations those residents will potentially endure during a major flood event.
3. The challenges posed by global warming are in part a reflection on land clearing practices which, in turn, reflects the rapid extinction of flora and fauna. At this critical juncture, all governments need to do more to preserve existing native habitats and biodiversity. The raising of the Warragamba dam wall and the development of those lands that the raising of the wall will supposedly protect, will result in further land clearing and further danger already threatened species. It is unconscionable to be entertaining such environmental vandalism given the times we are currently in.
4. This plan is yet another demonstration of contempt for Australian Aborigines and their culture. The Gundungarra Traditional Owners have identified over 1000 cultural heritage sites that will be destroyed as a result of the Dam proposal.
This plan to raise the dam wall should not go ahead.

To whom it may concern,
I object to the raising of the wall of the Warragamba Dam.
I object as this will cause damage to the wildlife and cultural sites in the surrounding area.

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for 40 years and have been walking and bike riding throughout the mountains for all of that time.
The proposed raising of the dam wall makes no sense for several reasons.
The periodic rise in water level would cause significant permanent damage to the surrounding vegetation including rare and endangered vegetation communities and the fauna which depends on intact ecosystems. It has become clear recently that the Environmental Impact Statement which should address these matters has been superficial and politically influenced.
The water level increase would extend into river valleys hitherto unaffected by development.
Aboriginal heritage has been largely ignored.
World Heritage listing for the Blue Mountains took many years to accomplish and would be jeopardised by the proposal. The affected area is preserved under many legal instruments.
Since Warragamba Dam is situated upstream of several major tributaries (Nepean, Grose, South Creek, Colo) it is clear that much of the future flooding would remain unaffected by increased impoundage behind the dam, and thus the height increase would be only partially effective in flood control.
It is evident that the driver for this proposal is the opportunity for widespread urban development in the floodplain.
I call upon the NSW State Government to reject this proposal.
If necessary the operational level of the dam could be reduced to allow headroom for floodwater; better provision should be made for alternative evacuation routes and a buy-back of vulnerable properties should be undertaken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please see attached.

We are terrestrial ecologists who have worked in the Blue Mountains region for almost 40 years. In 2019 we published a book Native Fauna of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area which documents the terrestrial fauna and fauna habitats of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
The proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by 14 m will significantly adversely impact (through permanent or intermittent flooding) 1,300 ha of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA), 5,700 ha of reserved conservation areas and 65 km of wild rivers, including the iconic Kowmung River. It will significantly adversely impact biodiversity values including threatened flora and fauna species and threatened ecological communities. The impacts on iconic threatened species such as the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and vulnerable Camden White Gum Eucalyptus benthamii are well documented. Such impacts on biodiversity will be permanent, cannot be adequately “offset” and are unacceptable.
The Greater Blue Mountains is listed as a World Heritage Area because of its outstanding natural values, including its biodiversity and threatened species. The proposed development will have a significant adverse impact on the internationally listed values of the GBMWHA. The Australian Government is a signatory to the World Heritage Convention and such a development will breach Australia’s international obligations under this Convention. The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has already raised concerns in regard to this proposed development. These concerns have not been properly addressed. To proceed, and to knowingly and deliberately degrade the values of a listed World Heritage Area, is unacceptable.
Much of the area that will be subject to flooding supports grassy woodland. Grassy woodlands are among the least conserved of any native vegetation in NSW and most of the remaining types are recognised as endangered ecological communities. Grassy woodland is restricted in area and covers only about 2% of the GBMWHA. Within the GBMWHA it grows on more fertile soils than the far more widespread dry sclerophyll forest, but in drier sites than wet sclerophyll forest. In addition, the form of grassy woodland growing in rain shadow areas at low elevations, such as in the Burrendong, Nattai and Wollondilly river valleys, differs from the grassy woodland that occurs in the Wolgan and Capertee river valleys on the western side of the World Heritage Area and the subalpine grassy woodland which grows at high elevations on the Boyd Plateau and near Mount Werong.
In the GBMWHA, grassy woodland has an open, grassy understorey, with a sparser shrub layer than in the widespread dry sclerophyll forest. The dominant eucalypts in grassy woodland vary but include Forest Red Gum, Blakely’s Red Gum, Grey, White, Yellow and Apple Boxes, and Narrow-leaved, Broad-leaved, Beyer’s and Mugga Ironbarks. These species all provide rich but intermittent sources of nectar for fauna. The fauna of grassy woodland is quite different in composition to that of the sandstone forests which dominate the GBMWHA. A suite of threatened birds, ‘the declining woodland birds’, is associated with the grassy woodland and includes the Little Lorikeet, Turquoise Parrot, Brown Treecreeper, Speckled Warbler, Regent Honeyeater, Painted Honeyeater, Black-chinned Honeyeater, Grey-crowned Babbler, Dusky Woodswallow, Hooded Robin and Diamond Firetail. Other birds associated with grassy woodland include the Common Bronzewing, Buff-rumped Thornbill, Southern Whiteface, Western Gerygone, White-throated Gerygone, Weebill, Fuscous Honeyeater, Noisy Miner, Striped Honeyeater, White-browed Babbler and Jacky Winter. Threatened mammal species associated with grassy woodland include the Squirrel Glider and Koala. Grassy woodland supports populations of Red-necked Wallabies and Grey Kangaroos, grazing animals seldom found in shrubby dry sclerophyll forest, where grass is scarce.
Grassy woodland is very restricted within the World Heritage Area. It was once common in the surrounding areas to the east, west and north, where it has now mostly been cleared for agriculture. What remains, both within and adjacent to the World Heritage Area, provides fauna habitat of particularly high conservation value which should be conserved rather than destroyed.
The proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall will have an unacceptable impact on the biodiversity values of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. These values are of international significance and Australia has an international obligation to protect them.

Dr Judy Smith and Dr Peter Smith
P & J Smith Ecological Consultants

Please read the attached file

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.

My objections and concerns