Warragamba Dam Raising

I am sure many local Warragamba, Silverdale and Wallacia residents are already considering what sort of class action can be taken against Water NSW and whatever contracting companies they will employ to construct the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall once the pollution of the local air, ground and water begins in and around their villages and the surrounding countryside and roads due to the predicted massive daily heavy vehicle and light vehicle transports and the predicted influx of 500 plus construction workers and affiliated workers and industries required for the Dam wall project.

Included in such pollution will be the road damage, house and home and building damage due to the vibration from the heavy vehicles driving past at the rate of (as stated in the proposal) at least once an hour. (But probably more). The noise from same. The Bioaccumulation pollution to residents and their children, pets and local flora and fauna.

In the Water NSW summary of proposed construction it is stated that there will be an average of 208 heavy vehicle movements over a 10 hour working day (semi-trailers driving past local residents homes and houses in the early morning and into the early evening).

Note that 208 heavy vehicles in means 208 heavy vehicles out! That is 416 heavy vehicle movements in the proposed 10 hour day.
Plus a proposed 250 to 500 light vehicles in that same 10 hour day period, most of whom will probably arrive together at the start of the work shift time periods and leave together at the end of the work shift periods. Remember 250 to 500 light vehicles in means the same number out, which translates to between 500 to 1000 light vehicle movements a day.

So in short there will be a massive number of heavy vehicles and light vehicles driving past residents homes and houses and schools and pre-schools all day long.
Road congestion and breakdowns and accidents along local roads are all highly predictable.
Transport and traffic based pollution is guaranteed!

For readers who may not know what Bioaccumulation is:
'Bioaccumulation is the gradual accumulation of substances, such as pesticides or other chemicals, in an organism. Bioaccumulation occurs when an organism absorbs a substance at a rate faster than that at which the substance is lost or eliminated by catabolism and excretion. Thus, the longer the biological half-life of a toxic substance, the greater the risk of chronic poisoning, even if environmental levels of the toxin are not very high.' Copied from Wikipedia.

If the NSW Government and Water NSW is truly concerned for the health and safety of local residents (and taxpayers) then the Raising of the Warragamba Dam wall project should be cancelled immediately.
If the project goes ahead...well that is what companies like Shine Lawyers and Class Actions are for!

My complete submission is in the attached pdf document.

It is our understanding that many years ago they raised the dam wall for the purpose of trying to mitigate property flooding down stream. However over recent years the level of the Warragamba dam is kept to around 100 percent leaving no capacity for a wet period. The enormous damage caused by flooding down river is felt by the community for years.
The Hawkesbury River flood in March 2021 was totally due to Warragamba Dam spilling, causing down stream devastation. There was little to no damage in the Parramatta, George’s River and Illawarra systems.
Can you please on behalf of the Hawkesbury community consider raising the dam wall as a matter of urgency. I am writing this evening having steady rain all week causing my family and local community enormous anxiety thank you
Rob and Linda Dower

Raising wall will damage 5,700 hectares of National Parks & 1,300 hectares of World Heritage which both governments promised to protect for future generations. What will the world think of us?
Will destroy thousands of Aboriginal sites & places of cultural significance & the Gundungurra traditional owners haven't given their consent.
The rising water would drive threatened species into extinction.
The proposal's EIS doesn't take into consideration the already destructive impacts of the 2019/20 bushfire on our unique flora & fauna.
The proposal says it will reduce flooding for Western Sydney residents & businesses but this is not true as half of previous flooding was caused by rivers outside the Warragamba catchment.
This will encourage settlement in areas where no future flooding is guaranteed.
I feel any benefits are outweighed by very significant losses so how is this proposal justified?
This proposal will destroy irreplaceable areas just to satisfy the demands of developers & their political interests. We need sensible development in areas that don't affect priceless heritage.
I will not vote for parties or government which destroy our natural & cultural assets.

To whom it may concern - As a Blue Mountains resident for several years I object to the raising of the Dam wall for the following reasons: 1. There are a number of World Heritage & cultural sites that would be adversely affected. 2. The Indigenous owners of the land have not given Informed Consent for the Dam proposal to proceed. 3. The upstream inundation of the Burragorang Valley and Heritage area would affect dozens of threatened plant and animal species. 4. Access to the lake's edge at the Burragorang catchment is critical as a breeding ground for the regent honeyeater and other bird species. 5. There are alternative ways to protect the residents of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley from flooding. (Currently almost half the flooding comes from rivers upstream independent of the Dam). 6. New development proposals for the areas should be carefully considered unless an alternative to raising the dam wall can be found. 7. I am encouraged by the fact that Premier Perrotet has announced that these alternatives should be considered. Please act along these lines before it is too late to protect this important World Heritage area.

Dear DPIE

I’m writing to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam.

I’ve lived and worked in the Blue Mountains for over 30 years . As an enthusiastic bush walker I’ve explored the World Heritage listed Blue Mountains on hundreds of walks. As a volunteer and a paid bush regenerator I’ve come to appreciate the beauty of the mountains and the continuing threats to its fauna and flora. As a veteran documentary maker I’ve also come to a greater understanding of the increased challenges to our environment posed by climate change.

We are told that the dam wall needs raising to help prevent flooding. You don’t need to be an expert to understand that this is a flawed argument , as nearly half the floodwaters that have historically impacted the flood plain come from rivers outside the Warragamba catchment

I suspect a predictable side effect of raising the dam wall will be another surge of inappropriate housing projects – in an area suffering from lack of infrastructure – schools, public transport – and growing temperatures thanks to global warming. Remember when Penrith was recorded as the hottest place on Earth a few years ago.

The most immediate result will be the catastrophic impact on the catchment environment. It will decimetre 5,700 hectares of national Parks , 1300 hectares of World Heritage area , more than 60 kilometres of wilderness rivers and thousands of Aboriginal sites. On the last point it’s a disgrace that once again no consent has been obtained from the Gundungurra Traditional Owners.

The rising water level will drive more threatened species into extinction , including the state’s rarest bird , the Regent Honeyeater.

Surely a state government which has been making encouraging sounds on other aspects of the environment can see the folly of the dam project. It’s not too late – I join thousands of others in giving this proposal a big fat NO.

To whom it may concern,
my wife and regularly bushwalk in the Blue Mountains National park. We appreciate its beauty and this needs to be preserved. This area is on the World Heritage List and as custodians of it we should not damage this park. Also there are Aboringal Scared sites that will be submerged.
Basically flooding can be prevented by lowering the dam water level. If we raise the dam wall but keep the water level at the same distance below the top of the dam as now then we will still get flooding. It would be better to lower the dam water level when we are entering wetter weather cycles as predicted by the Weather bureau. During drier periods raise the water level.

To whom it may concern,
How could you take away highly important cultural sites, so that big investors can make more money. And what point is enough, how many cultural sites do we have to lose for you to realise that there is an infinste amount of money but a finite amount of cultural sites.

To whom it may concern,
I recommend that and plans to raise the Warragamba dam wall be scrapped. In addition to that well documented damage to environment and heritage, it will in no way provide flood protection to flood prone areas - they will still flood. A much better solution is to take responsibility for past mistakes and buy back land that should never have been developed in the first place. It is irrefutable that 100% of flood damage is caused by inappropriately developing in flood prone areas.

Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI-8441 –
Temptation to further flood the World Heritage Site and make it permanent
One of the major things that will limit Australia’s population in the future will be water supply. Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will create a “dam half empty” situation (if you are a pessimist). If this planned raising of the wall is proceeded with, it will only increase the temptation of ambitious optimists to dispense with the excuse of flood prevention and make the flooding permanent as Sydney’s population is allowed to rise. One so-called “victory” over nature on this front will also only increase the temptation to further raise or rebuild the entire catchment, thus creating a larger permanent water scar across the Blue Mountains National Park and providing the citizens and tourists of Katoomba and environs with permanent water views - thus displaying to everyone NSW’s thoughtless desecration of the world heritage area.
This dam was designed and created as water storage. Attempting to turn it into a flood mitigation facility whilst still keeping it as water storage will result in a facility attempting to do two things, neither of which it will do particularly well and its failure as a flood mitigation or prevention tool will have catastrophic consequences, as occurred in Brisbane after the Wyvern Dam mismanagement fiasco in 2020. It is to be noted that the operators of this dam have subsequently reduced its storage level to 80% of its previous capacity.
Increased flooding threat downstream
The submersion of the approaches to the new Windsor Bridge and the recent flooding of Windsor have been described as a 1 in a 100 year flood which saw the Hawkesbury River at Windsor peaking at 12.9m above sea level on 24 March 2021, yet the Warragamba dam as it exists today did not overflow. This fact exposes the arguments about flood prevention on Western Cumberland plain as being entirely void. Raising the Dam beyond the level of the current overflow would only create a larger sword of Damocles to hang over the heads of the residents and property buyers who are misled enough to be sucked in by the promotion of land-hungry developers and their enablers who want to change the flood zones for their own profit.
Destruction of indigenous sacred sites
As I understand it, the land of the Burragorang valley has been previously inhabited by the Gundungurra people, who were forced off their land and sacred sites when they were destroyed by the first flooding of the Burragorang catchment. The projected further flooding of the river systems would destroy many, many more of these lands and their sacred sites, further reducing and deleting the culture of these people, who are today part of our community. Let us not maintain the prevailing practice of using these people as doormats for developers and their developments. The Department of Planning and Environment acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land and pays respect to all Elders past, present and future – it says so on its website. This Department, and its supervising NSW Government, should put this into practice.
Drowning of wild habitats including Regent Honeyeater
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall by 14 metres would drown old-growth forests and stands of the threatened box gum tree in the Burragorang Valley. Many native animals and birds, some of them endangered, such as the Regent honeyeater, both nest and feed in these forests. When last surveyed, there were only 350 Regent honeyeaters left in the wild. The Regent Honeyeater is critically endangered, and the most threatened bird in NSW. Leading ecologists have said flooding the Burragorang Valley will be tantamount to signing off on the bird’s extinction.
Conclusion
Anyone who has been to some of these threatened rivers will know how beautiful they are. Those of us lucky enough to have wandered on the Coxs, the Kowmung, the Nattai and their tributaries will be aware that they are priceless gems. These are the treasures that we have an opportunity to preserve and bequeath to the world and our following generations. The surviving Burragorang wilderness is priceless. Let’s not throw it away.
I most strongly object to the dam raising proposal,
I have never made a donation to any political party.

To whom it may concern,
I am seriously concerned about the activities and development proposals in our catchment area including the proposed dam wall and fracking activity.
Water security is of primary importance.
Transperancy and accountability using public money is not being communicated.
Enough is Enough

To whom it may concern,
Stop record Population growth and you will not have a need for this ecologically destructive proposal

The following is a submission on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Warragamba Dam Raising Project (SSI-8441).

I have been walking and cycling in the Blue Mountains for over 40 years. I have made many trips which have probably covered thousands of kilometres in the area so I am familiar with the areas what would be directly affected by raising the wall of the Warragamba dam. It is a disgrace that part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would be directly affected if the raising goes ahead. Not only that, national parks including the Blue Mountains National Park, Nattai National Park and Kanangra Boyd National Park would be directly and indirectly affected should the raising proceed.

The proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall comes after a multitude of failures on the part of the NSW Government. It failed to have the EIS carried out by a competent respected organisation. It failed to ensure protection of national parks and the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. It failed to appropriately assess cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members. It failed to comprehensively assess alternative options in the EIS to raising the wall. It failed to recognise that 45% of floodwaters on the Hawkesbury flood plain are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. But it is not too late to correct these failures. The Minister can correct them by rejecting the proposal and adopting one or more of the alternatives.

EIS
The EIS was deficient in many major respects. SMEC Engineering, who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history of abusing Indigenous rights and have recently been barred by the world bank. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken since the fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage area. 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 sites and endangerd and critically endangered species threatened
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 (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, a number of Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland and habitat for endangered and critically endangered species including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last emu population.

Cultural heritage sites ignored
Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the 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.

It is inconceivable that the Minister could contemplate destruction of aboriginal heritage when the recent destruction of Juukan Gorge highlighted the importance of the protection of this heritage.

Alternatives to raising the wall
There are many alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect existing floodplain communities. Alternative options were not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the catchment upstream of Warragamba Dam. 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.
A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.

I urge the Minister to reject the proposal to raise the wall of the Warragamba Dam based on the considerations outlined above.

To whom it may concern,
please do not raise the dam wall. It is unnecessary for Sydney water needs. It is will only allow unsustainable population growth. But it will take away world heritage area that is highly regarded around the world.

To whom it may concern,
I am an eager bushwalker, actively involved in the oldest bushwalking club in Australia. I have the freedom to visit places that some can only dream about. The feelings I get when I spend time out in nature, cannot be replaced with anything else. I have a duty to protect the places I visit, and leave them in a better state than when I found them.
It is for these reasons I am vehemently opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.

There are too many other reasons to articulate here, but some of the main ones are destruction of a section of lands that Australia has vowed to protect (under the World Heritage Convention), destruction of vital animal habitats, some of which are endangered, destruction and loss forever significant First Nations Peoples sites. Consider the impact that the Tasmanian dam projects had in the 80's, and the considerations that reversed those decisions. They are relevant here.
It is not clear to me that the NSW Government or it's proxies have followed due diligence with all concerned parties, and there is a sense that they are rushing this through in the hope that it will be approved quickly and quitely. This decision (to raise the dam wall) is shameful. The shame of it is that once the land is submerged its gone, it's gone, forever. What are the true benefits? Do they truly outweigh the impacts to our integrity in the world to protect the lands we vowed to protect? Do they truly outweigh the impacts to hundreds and thousand of affected flora and fauna species? Is it our right to think they will just 'adapt'? Have the stakeholders impacted been given the timely opportunity to have a say that adds weight to finding alternatives? Has there been sufficent modeling to show that this project would achieve its aim to mitigate flood impacts? Has information required to make this decision come from multiple sources, so that cross-checking can be achieved? This is not our land, not the governments. We should have the capability to tell the Government what they can and cannot do with the lands they are custodians of on our behalf.
Please consider the alternatives. Raising the dam wall is not an alternative worth considering to myself, or my family. The loss is too great for all concerned, now and for the generations to follow.

Thank you for your email pointing out the deficiencies in my submission. I initially opted to send it by email to avoid having to get yet another online account for yet another organisation. However, due to the uncertainty that it had been lodged successfully, indicated in the automated reply, I opted to submit it online and received an immediate response that it had been successful (ref. SE-31549607). Consequently, I now request that the email version be disregarded.

However, I request that the ambiguities in the email (and written) submission instructions be resolved. The email instructions state:
"Your submission must include:
• A subject line which states: Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI8441 – [Your Name] and [Your Suburb]
• A statement about any personal information you do not want us to publish online;
• A statement on whether you support or object to the proposal;
• The reasons why you support or object to the proposal; and
• A declaration of any reportable political donations made in the previous two years (as an attached PDF/jpeg). "
I made all of these statements in my email or attachment, except the last. If the form in which they were made was inadequate, then their description needs to be improved.

When I downloaded the form for disclosure of political donations,I found it stated immediately under the heading:
"If you are required under Section 147(3).....to disclose any political donations,..... please fill in this form and sign below"

As I had made no political donations, this did not seem to be applicable. If a statement to that effect is required, it needs to be made clear on the form.

If this is a problem for submissions on projects in general, I would appreciate my comments being escalated to the appropriate level for further action.

We have read the EIS – Exec Summary and strongly support the proposal for the following reasons.

• The Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley has the highest single flood risk exposure in New South Wales.
• Raising the Dam wall will provide flood mitigation and significantly reduce the existing risk to life and property.
• Like many others our health, property and business have been seriously affected by the overflow from the Dam.
• We have not recovered and live in constant fear of the next flood and the danger to our lives if the wall is not raised.
• If only one human life is saved by raising the wall the project will have been more than justified.

To whom it may concern,
I live in the Blue Mountains. Three generations of my family live on the Hawkesbury flood plain. We have had experience in all kinds of weather and disasters, inlcuding numerous floods.
In regards to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall, our concerns are many. Much of the floodwater comes from downstream of the dam. The release of water from floodgates in recent floods was not managed appropriately and made the flooding worse than could have been. Adding to that storage capacity does not seem like a good idea, for starters.
I do not support building on floodplains. Floodplains will remain floodplains no matter what happens with the dam wall.
If the proposal is to go ahead, I believe a different company should do an environmental impact study. There is too much missing from this one and it ignores the *significant* damage that will occur to irreplacable indigenous heritage sites and animal populations.
Please think very carefully about this. I believe more damage will occur from raising the dam wall than leaving it be. People living along waterways should always be prepared for flooding. I speak from long experience, and have never found it that difficult to manage.