Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for the following reasons:
An increase of the height of the wall will have a devastating impact on the natural environment in a World Heritage listed national park. We should be preserving what little bushland environment we have left - not destroying it for the benefit of developers who just want the opportunity to develop on a floodplain.
It will destroy many sacred indigenous places and sites and would be yet another example of the cultural vandalism we have inflicted on the first inhabitants and land owners.
The threat of climate change dictates that we should be protecting our bushland, not destroying more of it and the plants and animals that inhabit these areas.
Use the undeveloped floodplains of Western Sydney for farming. Sydney needs this land for food production which is an appropriate activity for a floodplain. Housing is certainly not appropriate.
Please do not raise the wall of Warragamba Dam and diminish and destroy environmentally valuable land, and natural bushlands, numerous threatened species, and precious indigenous heritage.

To whom it may concern,
I have walked in the Kowmung and Coxs River areas and they are of great beauty and importance. There is a rich heritage of Aboriginal occupation and sites of continuing importance to living and future Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians.
The raising of Warragamba Dam will destroy these areas irreparably. We have a responsibility to protect this history and World Heritage listed National Park landscapes.
The funds required for the proposed raising of the dam would be far better spent on reducing the settlement of flood-prone areas through buy-backs and other flood mitigation measures. The Warragamba catchment is only part of the Nepean-Hawkesbury river system and raising the dam will not prevent flooding. Why risk losing important protected areas and Aboriginal sacred sites on a project that will not achieve the desired result of preventing floods in the Nepean-Hawkesbury river flood-plain?
The rigour of the EIS is also in question with no modelling of flood levels, inadequate threatened species surveys and a lack of post-bushfire surveys.
Risking World-heritage listing status, destroying Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and a declared wild river (Kowmung) in an already protected National Park for an incomplete and flawed plan to prevent flooding is a reprehensible act that I am vehemently opposed to.
Please do not raise Warragamba Dam wall. Preserve what is already meant to be protected by law and is recognised through World Heritage status.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing as a bushwalker who has been walking in the Blue Mountains since the mid 1970s. My first exploration of the Kowmung River was in 1983 and my most recent visit was in 2019. Over that time I have observed the area has remained a pristine wilderness area as it was before white settlement. The communities of plants and animals are unique, extensive and undisturbed and entirely free of human intervention. Its wilderness value has been recognised both internationally and nationally with the Greater Blue Mountains Area being designated as a World Heritage Area by UNESCO in 2000 and included in Australia’s National Heritage List in 2007.
I oppose the raising of the dam wall for a number of reasons. The raised wall will lead to the inundation of this wilderness area threatening the ecosystem that UNESCO has recognised as a World Heritage Area. I believe that as the custodians of this World Heritage Area, Australians have an obligation to protect it from damage. I am particularly concerned that damaging this upstream wilderness will impact on threatened species such as the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last emu population. I am also aware there are in excess of 1500 aboriginal cultural heritage sites in the area that could be irreversibly damaged if it were flooded.
In addition, I oppose the raising of the dam wall on moral grounds. Raising the dam will not prevent the floodplain from flooding because there are a number of rivers that feed into the Hawkesbury-Nepean downstream of the dam wall. In heavy rain events there will still be the potential for flooding of floodplain communities. People purchasing housing on floodplain-prone land are being sold a lie by property developers who stand to gain large profits at the expense of people who are not aware of the implications of the raising of the dam wall but who are just wanting a piece of the “Australian dream” to own their own home.
I implore the government to reject the proposal to raise the dam wall and seek alternative solutions to protect existing floodplain communities.

To whom it may concern,
I object to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall and am concerned about the environmental impacts and loss of cultural heritage that raising the dam wall will have.
In this age of climate change, it is imperative that forests be protected. To flood additional parts of the valley that the dam is set in would kill many trees and destroy precious habitat.
It is also my informed perspective that - rather than holding more water back - additional environmental flows are needed in the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, and that raising the dam wall will facilitate lower environmental flows.
I object to the expense involved in adding to the dam wall as I understand these costs will be passed on to the customers of Water NSW and the end users. Many people are already struggling to pay their utilities bills. I further object to the use of the dam wall to create development opportunities in flood-prone areas of the Hawkesbury - this is an example of 'socialising the costs while privatising the profits'.
Precious habitat will be lost and the extra water withheld behind a larger dam must lead to the degradation of down-stream water quality.
Rather than increase the dam wall, the NSW Government should invest in measures that reduce the prevalence of impervious/non-permeable surfaces in the inhabited areas of the catchment and the increase in public infrastructure that reduces run-off in areas adjacent to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River.
Additional investment in drought-proofing western Sydney through installation of rainwater tanks and the creation of wetlands will have far greater positive impacts than an increase in the dam wall.
The environmental impacts of raising the dam wall will be serious and the objectives of raising the dam wall can be achieved without the same degree of environmental harm; in fact, it is possible to achieve net positive environmental outcomes using the approaches I have outlined.

To whom it may concern,
I am a former Sydney resident who enjoyed bushwalking in the Blue Mountains National Park - and still do, when I visit. The Mountains are world class, not just for the spectacular landscapes but also for the unique natural environment and biodiversity.
I am opposed to the proposal to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam wall, for the following reasons: -
• Alternatives to raising the dam wall have not been explored.
• The EIS presents no modelling to support the claimed flood and economic benefits of raising the dam wall. This is a very concerning omission, particularly for the vast numbers of people who live on the flood plains.
• The Blue Mountains is a World Heritage Area. Raising the dam wall would cause huge damage to natural and cultural values, in contravention of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
• The EIS has not included adequate threatened species surveys.
• Assessment of Aboriginal cultural heritage - the Report has been criticised by both the Federal Department of the Environment and ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites)
• Traditional owners were not consulted in a meaningful way in the cultural heritage assessement.
• Traditional owners have not given consent for the proposal to go ahead.

To whom it may concern,

I have walked many times in the Blue Mountains and am a keen supporter of flora and fauna in Australia.
I live in Queensland - a state that just loves to destroy native habitat. I see it every day in my journey to work, more trees being pulled down and green land becoming cement and tarmac.

I am writing to you to ask that you do not raise the Dam wall at Warragamba Dam. There are alternatives, and these need to be fully investigated, not just ignored.
Too much ecological damage has already been done within Australia - lets please try to not continue down that path.

To whom it may concern,

I have a life long connection with the Blue Mountains, my grandmother had a cottage in Leura and she would bring me to the mountains often for visits and stays. I have always loved its natural beauty and wilderness.
I moved to Lawson in 2000 and frequently walk many of the bush tracks in the LGA. I bring friends and family to visit here.
I wanted to write to the Minister about the raisingof the dam wall because I am concerned about the impacts, environmentally, culturally and economically.
The inundation of 65 kilometers of wilderness rivers, 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area will have a huge impact on the environment. Not only will this result in loss of habitat for many species but also the loss of trees will greatly increase our greenhouse gases due to the decrease in carbon capture they have provided.
Much of this area has been protected by legislation for good reason. Our wilderness plays a vitally important role in the production of oxygen and reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. If, subsequent to the raising of the dam wall, more housing was built, this will compound the environmental degradation.
If housing development is planned for the Nepean flood plain area, an if this is the area currently used to grow food for Sydney it will mean food will need to be transported from further afield. Have there been adequate plans for where the increased amount of food can be grown and the environmental and financial costs for everyone taken into consideration?
Over 1500 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the proposal. Have the Gundungurra community given their full consent to this proposal?
Have alternate plans to mitigate floods in the area been given due consideration? Plans that take the environment and cultural heritage into consideration?
I am against the raising of the dam wall as I believe the costs are too high environmentally and culturally. I think the plan will increase greenhouse gases by inundation of the natural forest. More planning needs to be done to reduce our carbon footprint, not increase it.

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Upper BlueMountains. I moved to the mountains because I love the mountains beautiful natural environment as do many others. I cannot understand why governments and beurocrats always want to destroy our beautiful landscapes to solve the logistical problems of cities. Where is the evidence that raising the dam wall will solve the problem of flooding. Is there any modelling that showing this? Scientists have shown that 45% of the floodwaters of the Nepean Hawksbury River originate from areas much higher than the dams. What is the sense of inundating 65 kilometers of widerness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Parks for an unproven and expensive strategy that is so destructive and contradicts the will of the people, not only Blue Mountains residents but those who live in cities and come to the mountains for rest and recreation. Many ecological communities have already been devastated by the wilfires of 2019/2020 and will continue to face devastation from future sever events caused by climate change. To even contemplate a further catastrophe that would be caused by raising the dam wall is shocking. I ask that you leave the dam wall alone and take a hard look at finding some means of solving the problem of flooding. This would also offer some relief to the First Nations people who are very concerned at the loss of their cultural sites if the dam wall is raised. Stay away from the Dam Wall Please.

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Upper BlueMountains. I moved to the mountains because I love the mountains beautiful natural environment as do many others. I cannot understand why governments and beurocrats always want to destroy our beautiful landscapes to solve the logistical problems of cities. Where is the evidence that raising the dam wall will solve the problem of flooding. Is there any modelling that showing this? Scientists have shown that 45% of the floodwaters of the Nepean Hawksbury River originate from areas much higher than the dams. What is the sense of inundating 65 kilometers of widerness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Parks for an unproven and expensive strategy that is so destructive and contradicts the will of the people, not only Blue Mountains residents but those who live in cities and come to the mountains for rest and recreation. Many ecological communities have already been devastated by the wilfires of 2019/2020 and will continue to face devastation from future sever events caused by climate change. To even contemplate a further catastrophe that would be caused by raising the dam wall is shocking. I ask that you leave the dam wall alone and take a hard look at finding some means of solving the problem of flooding. This would also offer some relief to the First Nations people who are very concerned at the loss of their cultural sites if the dam wall is raised. Stay away from the Dam Wall Please.

To whom it may concern,
Please find below my objection to the proposed raising of the Warragamba dam.
1. My connection to this subject:
as a higher rate tax payer I am directly impacted by this project. If it goes ahead it will result in either increased taxes or reduced services elsewhere in the NSW Goverment budget.
2. Facts about this proposal
Fact 1: I am a geologist and I can tell you that flood plains do flood occasionaly.
Fact 2: Building in flood plains puts people and property into harms way unless buildings are put on stilts.
Fact 3: In view of facts 1 and 2 above it was grossly negligent by the relevant autorities at the time to approve existing dwellings in the flood plains at ground level and not on stilts.
Fact 4: Building in flood plains is very profitable for developers because the land is cheaper than on floodproof places and that means higher profits.
Fact 5: The NSW tax payers would subsidise the profits of the developers that build in the floodplains downstream of the Warragamba dam if the proposed dam raising goes ahead. It would make the land which they already own more valuable.

3. My position:
I oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam because I do not want to pay for enabling further development of the downstream flood plains. This plan has zero benefits to me and only subsidises developers profits. Shame on the proponents in the NSW Goverment.

To whom it may concern,

This is clearly a flawed process. The concerns regarding the eis alone should see this plan scrapped. Surely if saving life is the goal then it would be cheaper and far more successful to acquire the most at risk properties and provide better flood evacuation and mitigation work.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of the blue mountains for over 18 years and have witnessed urban sprawl slowly expanding into the surrounding areas of the beautiful blue mountains, a national park and an area which generates huge tourism. The pressure from developers is rising and I am feeling it. People live and visit the blue Mountains to escape the cities, to witness the sheer beauty of the tall forests, rainforests and heathland, to admire the biodiversity, go bushwalking while absorbing the tranquility and sound of the lyrebirds and cockatoos to name a few. I am tired of feeling like our environment is on the edge, an expendable commodity that can be bought by investors and destroyed, to never recover. Our footprint is HUGE. It is protected for a reason, people fought long and hard to make it so. It seems that in the jaws of progress this means very little to governments.
Where is the consultation with our first people. I thought we learnt from the whole Rio Tinto saga. Are we to disregard once again the significance of the blue mountains to indigenous people.
I have read, 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. That’s huge.
What was the desalination plant built for?
I am definitely against the raising of wall of the Warragamba Dam. I say No.
STOP DESTROYING OUR ENVIRONMENT. We are the termites of the planet. My solution is population control.

To whom it may concern,
Please protect those who need it the most Amen.

Don’t raise the height of the dam wall. We need to learn to live with the water we have and conserve it more.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to express my firm opposition to any further action to destroy the natural heritage of Australia and specifically this dam project.

To whom it may concern,
I writing to express my dismay at the NSW Government's decision to destroy the rare wilderness, aboriginal heritage and endangered species in the Warragamba Catchment.
I have been conducting flood planning on the Nepean Hawkesbury River System for over 40 years and am well aware of the flood risk and for many years was the disaster planner for Warragamba Dam.
The cost of the dam works will exceed forecasts as all large engineering projects do. The money would be more strategically spent buying back high flood risk land and using the land for public recreation and food production. Flood plains were created by nature as high production food plots. The market gardens would provide fresh low miles food for Australia's largest city. Jobs would be created. This strategy would be a significant climate change strategy reducing emissions in moving food and aid the long term shift to higher vegetable diets and less meat consumption.

To whom it may concern,
I writing to express my dismay at the NSW Government's decision to destroy the rare wilderness, aboriginal heritage and endangered species in the Warragamba Catchment.
I have been conducting flood planning on the Nepean Hawkesbury River System for over 40 years and am well aware of the flood risk and for many years was the disaster planner for Warragamba Dam.
The cost of the dam works will exceed forecasts as all large engineering projects do. The money would be more strategically spent buying back high flood risk land and using the land for public recreation and food production. Flood plains were created by nature as high production food plots. The market gardens would provide fresh low miles food for Australia's largest city. Jobs would be created. This strategy would be a significant climate change strategy reducing emissions in moving food and aid the long term shift to higher vegetable diets and less meat consumption.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing today to oppose the raising of the warragamba dam.
The risks posed to the flood lands is incredible and there are better solutions that are safer are significantly more sustainable long term.
Irrigate and run the desalination plant that we has been left to waste and already cost exorbitant tax dollars

> I strongly OBJECT to this proposal for the following reasons:
>
> As a keen bush walker I am very familiar with the area and understand its beauty and its importance as habitat with significant biodiversity. I have completed the Katoomba to Mittagong walk and believe this should be promoted as one of the great multi day walks in NSW. I believe that the destruction of large areas of native bushland through flooding would be an environmental catastrophe.
>
> ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON A WORLD HERITAGE LISTED AREA.
> The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is on the UNESCOs World Heritage list on the basis of its “Outstanding UniversalValue for the whole of mankind”.
> Under the proposal 5,700ha of National Park (1,300ha within the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area) would be inundated. Under the World Heritage Convention, Australia has an obligation to manage and protect areas listed as World Heritage. Damage of the natural and cultural values through flooding would be in breach of the World Heritage Convention.
> Under the proposal an estimated 65km of wilderness rivers would be inundated. This includes the Kowmung River which has been declared a “Wild River” and protected under the NationalParks and Wildlife Act, 1974.
> ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) has written to both the NSW and Federal Governments warning against raising the Dam wall.
> This is therefore an area of recognized environmental and cultural significance and must be protected. Raising the dam wall would be in breach of this and must not be permitted.
>
> ABORIGINAL HERITAGE
> Under World Heritage listing this area has significant Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. It’s importance is for local Aborignial communities and also for all Australians.
> It is not acceptable that only 27% of the area which would be impacted by flooding has been assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
> It is not acceptable that there has been a lack of consultation with the Gundungurra community.
> It is not acceptable that 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be impacted by raising the dam wall. These sites are significant. They cannot be relocated and if they are inundated they are gone forever. Surely this is not the value we place on Aboriginal Heritage.
> It is also not acceptable that the company which undertook the cultural assessments was SMEC Engineering, a company noted for its lack of respect for Indigenous Rights.
>
> DESTRUCTION OF SIGNIFICANT HABITAT/BIODIVERSITY.
> The area which would be flooded has been identified as significant habitat. Damage would be considerable and irreplaceable.
> This area provides habitat for a number of endangered and critically endangered plants and animals and yet comprehensive studies have not been undertaken.
> One such species is the Regent Honeyeater recognized at both state and federal levels as critically endangered. As few as 350 Regent Honeyeaters remain in the wild. Breeding habitat for these birds will be severely impacted by this project. Given that 50% of their habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 fires, remaining unburnt areas are critical to their survival. Recovery programs are essential and must include this area.
> It should also be noted that people/groups working on the survival of the Regent Honeyeater strongly oppose offset strategies as artificial with little chance of success.
> Among the plant species which will be affected by this project is the Camden White Gum along with threatened ecological communities such as the Grass Box Woodland.
> Biodiversity through habitat protection is incredibly important for the survival of many species. The area which will be impacted by raising the dam wall is one of ecological richness and yet surveys of threatened species has been far from adequate.
>
> ALTERNATIVES TO THIS PROPOSAL
> The EIS does not comprehensively assess alternatives for this proposal.
> There is insufficient evidence that the cost of raising the dam wall can be justified. The benefit of solving flooding issues is marginal given that 45% of floodwaters occur below the dam wall. Flooding will always be an issue and raising the dam wall will not guarantee protection for floodplain communities. It potentially increases flood danger due to a larger body of water being retained upstream. In an extreme weather event (more likely under climate change) these communities would be under significant threat.
> The most cost effective strategy for flood risk mitigation is a combined approach where many options are considered. This should not include raising the dam wall which is an expensive option with questionable effectiveness. Strategies need to be developed based on scientific data to minimize flooding impact.
>
> Raising the Warragamba Dam Wall is not the solution to flood risk mitigation. It is an expensive option with no guarantee of success. Areas of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area would be destroyed resulting in the loss of significant ecological communities. Aboriginal Heritage sites would be destroyed. Communities living on the floodplain would be no safer. There are more economically viable and effective alternatives to this proposal which should be considered and implemented.