Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in Sydney all my life and I love that I live so close to such a beautiful place as the Blue Mountains. I want to make sure that this area is preserved for generations to come.

I am shocked by the government's plan to raise the dam level for the following reasons:
World Heritage areas will be lost
Aboriginal cultural sites will be lost
Species like the platypus will be put in danger by the loss of habitat
The traditional owners of the land were not properly consulted and have not given consent
There are many alternative options that could be used but haven't been thoroughly assessed
45% of floodwaters come from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. This means that no matter how high the dam wall is, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
I am opposed to the raising of the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I have have the privilege of living on the escarpment of the Blue Mountains and spent many years bushwalking in the Blue Mountains National Park. I OPPOSE the raising of the dam for many reasons some of which are :-
1. I feel the integrity of the EIS is fundamentally flawed and therefore should not be accepted as a basis fur decision making by the Minister for Planning.
2. systematic failures of the EIS; no post-bushfire fied 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; no modelling of the stated flood and e onomic benefits of the project are outlined in the EIS.
3. The Blue Mountains World Heritage area will be under threat including the Kowmung River, unique eucalyptus species and threatened Ecological communities.
4. Gundungurra Traditiional Owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the dam proposal to proceed.
5. There are many alternative options to raising dam wall not comprehensivelu assessed in the EIS.
6. I BELIEVE THE WHOLE PROJECT IS TO PUT MONEY IN THE POCKETS OF DEVELOPERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

To whom it may concern,
Dear Planning Minister,
I'd like to make comment on the proposed Warragamba Dam project SSI-8441 raising the dam wall height.
As a resident of Katoomba my partner and I regularly bush walk the many tracks of the Blue Mountains. I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall and the inundation of the 65km of wilderness rivers , 5,700 hectares of National Park and 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area as a result of the proposed project.
Not to mention the significant loss of 1,500 Indigenous cultural sites and the destruction of highly valuable habitat of the endangered Regent Honeyeater, koalas and Sydney's last remaining emu population.
The environmental impact survey conducted by SMEC Engineering is completely flawed and utterly worthless, for such a significant project. I'm completely dismayed that the Government would consider using this company with such a poor track record in other countries.
I am totally against any proposal to flood this World Heritage area for the sole benefit of developers building more homes in the flood plans of Western Sydney.

To whom it may concern,
As an avid bushwalker and naturalist of the Blue Mountains region, I oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam. SMEC has not conducted an appropriate environmental impact assessment, especially in light of the 2022 bush fires in the region. SMEC has been implicated of bribery in Sri Lanka and the Congo in 2016, and has been barred from the World Bank. In addition, the traditional landowners, the Gundungurra have not been properly consulted on the impact on their land. If SMEC is incapable of conducting a thorough assessment of the impact of their work on the environment and the cultural sites of aboriginal people, why trust them to prevent flooding in the region?

Finally, alternatives to raising the dam wall have not been considered. On average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment, meaning that flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley region will still occur. This project will not solve the flooding issue alone and will cause environmental and historical damage. Please consider alternatives to raising the Warragamba Dam wall.

Raising the Warragamba dam wall is not necessary. There are many more initiatives that can be employed in Sydney before this should be considered. The case has not been made that Sydney needs greater water retention. In any case, people are very happy to look at their water use and reduce it; this has been proven when we have been in periods of drought. The majority of Sydneysiders understand the need to limit water use and will do this permanently if there is the necessity to. Water tanks and water recycling are better alternatives than the proposed raising of the Warragamba wall. The community values its natural surrounds and the animals that inhabit it and need projects that respect the importance of our natural world and the benefits it provides. 'Easy' fixes that remove the habitat of our birds, in this case the nesting area of the Reagent Honeyeater, must be avoided. Humanity is well able and willing to make changes to our, often damaging, habits of living. All we require is leadership, clear explanation, and a sense of all pulling in the same direction to achieve an important goal. Animal habitat must be preserved. The NSW government needs to develop a different approach to water provision. The skill is in the department I'm sure. Please rethink this project.

I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam due to the project’s unacceptable potential impacts on the environment including to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and threatened species. The destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for local bird species would have dire consequences and is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into recovery programs. I also strongly oppose the Project’s weak excuse of an offset strategy - offsets are rarely an appropriate response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat for the survival of a species, in this case breeding habitat for the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater.

This project should not go ahead and has no support from members of the local community I have personally spoken to.

With the billions of animals lost in the bushfires, surely the NSW government has an even greater responsibility to protect what species we have left including the critically endangered Regent honeyeater?

Please don't ignore the actions in the Recovery Plan especially the retention of breeding habitat. The raising of the Dam would likely eradicate this population and its future.

On the NSW Government's Office of Environment and Heritage website, it says " The Regent Honeyeater is a flagship threatened woodland bird whose conservation will benefit a large suite of other threatened and declining woodland fauna."

Please listen to your own Government Department's advice about conservation of threatened species and don't be hypocrites. I hope that the EPBC Act would stop this project.

Offsets should be abolished - in most cases, they are simply an excuse to be seen as providing habitat when in fact there is no net gain in appropriate habitat.

Dear Committee
Thank you for this opportunity to make a submission on this very important issue.
Please read our attached document that lists the reasons why we strongly oppose and object to this proposal.
Thank you
Janice Haviland and other signatories

I oppose, in the strongest possible terms, the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall on the basis that this project will result in unacceptable negative outcomes, including:
1) Desecration of culturally significant land of the Gundungurra people through inundation; as a non-aboriginal person living on Gundungurra country I strongly oppose any further risk to Gundungurra land, culture or heritage, to proceed would further disrespect Gundungurra people and their custodianship of their land.
2) Threats to habitat in areas where inundation will occur, whether water levels rises are occasional or not, and whether inundation occurs for short or long periods.
3) My understanding is that expert input questions whether the proposed project will adequately prevent areas near Penrith from flooding.
4) Threats to the integrity and preservation of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
5) Risk to threatened species, most particularly the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater.
To expand on concerns 4 and 5 above:
UNESCO World Heritage listed Greater Blue Mountains Area:
UNESCO has already flagged concerns in relation to this proposal. UNESCO's description of the Greater Blue Mountains area include the following:
"Most of the natural bushland of the GBMA is of high wilderness quality and remains close to pristine. The plant communities and habitats occur almost entirely as an extensive, largely undisturbed matrix almost entirely free of structures, earthworks and other human intervention. Because of its size and connectivity with other protected areas, the area will continue to play a vital role in providing opportunities for adaptation and shifts in range for all native plant and animal species within it, allowing essential ecological processes to continue. The area’s integrity depends upon the complexity of its geological structure, geomorphology and water systems, which have created the conditions for the evolution of its outstanding biodiversity and which require the same level of protection." https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/917 [12/11/2021]

Regent Honeyeater:
As an experienced birder and someone who has contributed many hours to citizen science activities the threat arising to Regent Honeyater is of particular concern. As has been submitted by Birdlife Australia fewer than 350 birds are estimated as remaining in the wild; 21 birds and nesting activity were identified within the proposal area during the assessment period; the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater states “It is essential that the highest level of protection is provided to these areas and that enhancement and protection measures target these productive sites”. The Proposal contravenes the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater. My concerns for the preservation of Regent Honeyeater are exacerbated by input to the Parliamentary Inquiry by Dr Ross Crates, ANU in relation to his input to the EIS produced by SMEC. Dr Crates is a recognised ornithologist with particular expertise in the Regent Honeyeater. NSW and Commonwealth government resources have been directed towards species protection for this and other threatened species. It is counterproductive to expend funds on species and habitat protection and subsequently undermine the potential of such expenditure through this proposal. Recently, the NSW government announced its Zero Extinctions policy for NSW National Parks. The Waragamba Dam Wall proposal presents tangible risks to an already critically endangered species and is contrary to other NSW State Government policies and priorities. Australia already has a questionable international reputation given its current track record for species extinctions. The risk arising from this proposal is too great. It is a fallacy to rely on an offset policy to mitigate risk as offsets are an inappropriate and inadequate response for a critically endangered species.

In conclusion concerns I had regarding the risks arising from this proposed project have only been exacerbated by reports emerging from the State Parliamentary Inquiry currently underway (November 2021). In my view, the trustworthiness of the EIS produced by SMEC is questionable. Both the Blue Mountains and Wollondilly LGAs oppose this project. As a NSW voter and resident, I rely on elected representatives to act with integrity, and not to be influenced by vested interests in matters of decisionmaking and expenditure of public funds . The EIS of a proposal that will impact on an area of such significant cultural heritage, biodiversity and World recognised natural wilderness must be demonstrably beyond reproach. It is my view that the confidence of voters in WaterNSW, SMEC and the EIS has been so eroded by events todate the only acceptable decision the NSW Parliament can make is to abandon this proposal.

I wish to object to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam.
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains and believe that preservation of the natural beauty of the national park and protection for the important Aboriginal heritage sites should be the first priority of the NSW Government in this case.
The EIS does not give sufficient consideration to the damage which will be done to the natural environment from the proposed raising. Protection for housing in the Nepean flood plain has to be achieved by other means.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam. The benefits are questionable, while raising the dam wall is sure to damage our rivers, endanger already threatened plant and animal species, and destroy over one thousand Indigenous archaeological sites. These areas deserve protection and the $3.5 billion needed to raise the dam could be better spent on services that help communities and won’t flood our World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains.

To whom it may concern,
Building up the wall with the potentioal to flood the pristine blue mountaibbs just to protect some homes that should not have been built where they have, is a climate catastrophe.
This will destroy a popular tourist area and mean thst Australia and the NSW government will be known as an enviromental vandal

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains National Park and am very concerned for the envirionmental repercussions if the Warragamba Dam wall is raised and precious areas of this World Heritage site is inundated.
Sacred sites, wildlife and specific endemic flora are all at risk.
I oppose the raising of this wall and hope all consideration will be given to the damage that will obviously occur to this heritage site.

To whom it may concern,
It is patently madness to raise the Warranmgamba Dam wall.
The extra 1300ha that will be flooded are supposed to be afforded the highest level of protection: National Park, World Heritage Listed.
Are these meaningless protections?
Can I lodge an application over parliament house to turn it into a coal pit? Of course not - because the value of what will be lost is far greater than the value of what will be achieved.
As a professional engineer and environmental scientist, what is really needed is to protect the floodplain downstream of the dam from further intensifiction of development and not allow more residents below the flood line. And then back zone the highest risk areas and pay compensation or acquire the properties to protect life and property risks.
If need increase development densities on the non-flood prone land so you can still accommodate the same number of people. The acquired flood-prone land can be their open space.
Even a raised dam could fail at some point in future or flood when the dam is already full (refer Brisbane River 2011 Flood Inquiry).
To quote Sam Kekovich "You know this makes sense!"
PS Whilst I reside in Queensland I do manage properties in New South Wales.

To whom it may concern,
I respectfully ask that this plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall is totally quashed. I am concerned about the destruction of irreplaceable indigenous region and the impact on First Nations people when their sacred sites are again desecrated. We cannot afford to continue to destroy our ancient heritage.
I am also concerned about the impact on our Blue Mountains region which I and my family regularly visit for bush walks.
I worry about the disruption and damage to the Warragamba community from major disruption.
The delicate balance of ecosystems and threatened species are again at risk.
All this distraction for questionable gain.

To whom it may concern,
I emigrated from the UK over 40 years ago. From that time I have wondered at and explored the National Parks of NSW. I have always considered them one of the state's greatest assets. My wife and I have camped and bushwalked in them in our younger years. We frequently visited and bushwalked in the Blue Mountains.
I think it is important that these National Parks are preserved for their environmental, cultural and recreational values. They were established for all of us, now and long in to the future. Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall will adversley impact large areas of OUR National Parks. It will not stop flooding in the Sydney basin as many rivers flow into the basin below the dam.
I oppose this project because I want our National Parks to remain for the benefit of all. The Blue Mountains is a place of great environmental and cultural significance. It is so close to Sydney that it can be enjoyed by so many. I do not want to sacrifice any of it for yet more development under the guise of flood mitigation. I would like to see other options explored as far as flood mitigation is concerned.

The warragamba catchment is previous wilderness, the dam itself is already sufficient, it is all about developers greed to raise the dam, in an area where the greater region has been so affected by bushfire and consequent loss of numerous species flora and fauna, that habitat and ecosystems must remain intact around the dam and in its water flow trajectory
Do not build on flood plains.

To whom it may concern,
This glows against the whole interest of biodiversity and permanently reduces the available land for habitat by natural animals. I strongly disagree with this action and if it proceeds believe that the consequences will be similar to the ramifications that Rio Tinto suffered after blasting the Jukkan gorge. You have been warned

To whom it may concern,
This is my personal submission to the EIS for the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam. I object to the proposal because of it's adverse impacts on the World Heritage values of the area which is proposed to be flooded.
The project would result in the permanent loss of natural, ecological, research, historical and cultural values of the land.
Natural occurrences such as sea level rise and flooding have occurred in the past, but the current proposal to raise the dam wall to prevent downstream flooding and enable land development would have major ecological impacts and social costs that exceed the potential economic benefits of the project.
The population of the Greater Sydney Region is continuing to increase at a rapid rate but there are alternatives to further urban development on the Hawkesbury River Flood Plain, which is also an area that contributes significantly to the economy of Sydney through food production.

The proposal to raise the dam wall is not the best strategic outcome for the River and it's catchment which physically occupy a large proportion of the Sydney Basin. Too many major proposals are publicly announced and then approval is fast tracked. This must not happen with the current proposal. The public want to see the River and it's catchment protected for future generations to enjoy and share.

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the beautiful Blue Mountains and I am strongly opposed to this project, for the following important reasons.
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.
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 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.
The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project has an established history abusing Indigenous rights, recently being barred from the world bank.
Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the EIS.
The integrity of the environmental assessment is fundamentally flawed, and cannot be accepted as a basis for further decision-making by the Minister for Planning.
For all these significant reasons I am strongly opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam walls. Alternatives must be investigated in order to preserve the integrity of this precious part of New South Wales. I implore the NSW Government to heed my concerns and stop this destructive project from going ahead.