Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
Any raising of the Warragamba Dam wall would be unacceptable because it would destroy the habitat of native flora and fauna, including endangered species.
It would also bring the destruction of many Aboriginal cultural artifacts. Haven't enough of those been destroyed already?

To whom it may concern,
Raising the Dam would be disastrous.
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 pristine Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’; also habitat for endangered species like the regent honeyeater.
Traditional owners have not given consent to the drowning of 1541 cultural heritage sites.

To whom it may concern,
Sound like a damn good idea to me

To whom it may concern,
I am greatly concerned that the raising of warragambe dam will negatively impact UNESCO world heritage values in the greater blue mountains world heritage area.

To whom it may concern,
Please look at some alternatives

To whom it may concern,
Please save biodiversity and not raise the dam wall. Please use other means to reduce the city's demand for water.

To whom it may concern,
I am asking that you do not raise the Warragamba Dam wall. I am aware that should this happen it will have a devastating negative impact on the environment of both native flora and Fauna.
If we need more water for distribution there are alternative actions which can be implemented which will not destroy the environment.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for the following reasons:
- environmental damage caused by flooding events withing the valley
- threatened species both flora and fauna will become more endangered
- traditional custodians of the land have not provided consent
- stop overdevelopment on the flood plain
Stop this proposal, as it will damage the world heritage Blue Mountains national park.

Please find attached my submission to the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and
Environment regarding the Warragamba Dam Raising Project (Application No. SSI-8441).

My submission objects to the proposal for the reasons set out in the attachment.

As I note on the second page of the attachment, I have made no reportable political donations during the previous two years and I accept all of the Department’s submissions disclaimer and
declaration requirements, as set out at: https://www.planningportal.
nsw.gov.au/major-projects/help/disclaimer-and-declaration

To whom it may concern,
The Springwood Bushwalking Club has over 300 members of all ages who enjoy and love the Greater Blue Mountain World Heritage Area. A raised dam wall will destroy much of the area that we love and that we want to protect for all time, so that our children can also enjoy the wilderness. Damaging this area is a breach of our obligations under the World Heritage Convention. Over 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains Heritage Area will be inundated by this project. So many of us have enjoyed the Kowmung River which is a declared ‘Wild River’, and it will be inundated by this project. We were appalled at the lack of detailed assessment of the impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage and also on the endangered species in the area.
The EIS concludes that the impact on plant biodiversity of prolonged inundation with silt laden waters is unknown but LIKELY to be dire. The precautionary principle should be applied – especially for upstream pristine rivers in a World Heritage area. Flooding in downstream tributaries e.g. McDonald, Colo and Grose will block the flow of water leaving the Nepean. Springwood Bush Club considers that raising the Warragamba Dam wall will be ineffective and the EIS is seriously flawed. We oppose the raising of the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
Australia has been shown to the world as a nation that does not care about climate change or the natural environment.
if the Warragamba Dam walls are raised, this will just be another example of the Government's ignorance to what the people want.
Flood plains have been built on in the past and are prone to the turbulent weather patterns Australia has witnessed over the last five years. Raising the dam walls is part of a mitigation plan, to allow more houses to be built in the Sydney food bowl. This food bowl has shrunk, with huge housing developments pushing west from the city. This just adds to the heat in the summer and raises the risk of bush fires, for the semi rural locations that haven't yet been subdivided, naught up by construction institutes.

The dam wall should not be raised, spend the tax payers money on the environment and cleaner energy.

To whom it may concern,More destruction of habitat is completely un exceptable especially in this time of climate crisis.So many of our rivers have been dammed to the detriment of native fish and other aquatic species.Enough of first nations sacred sites have been destroyed already,this proposal will only add to this.This wall raising is a really destructive bad idea,and urge the nsw government to scrap this ill concieved plan
please reconsider this proposal

To whom it may concern,
I reject the plan to modify Warragamba dam wall. Our increasing population have decreasing opportunity to experience Australian nature as it was for millenia. It is important for the character and success of our nation that our living history be preserved for all to enjoy.
There are alternatives to this plan which do not cause further harm to the environment. Additionally, there is mounting evidence that this plan has not be prepared in a thorough manner.
Again, I implore the government to reject the plan to raise the dam wall. It will cause irreversible destruction.

To whom it may concern,
I fully back the NSW Government's plan to raise the height of the Warragamba Dam

To whom it may concern,
Mindless expansionism is destroying much of what is intrinsically Australian, the prospect of increasing the Warragamba dam catchment is yet another example.
When there's too much rainfall, the floodgates have to be opned, no matter who is in Government, so by increasing the capacity will the result in trashing upstream and downstream.

Please accept my submission in the form of the attached document

Warragamba Dam EIS Submission from Eugene Simonov
I am a scientist involved in World Heritage-related programs around the world, especially those involving dams, see my latest report at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353599398_2021.\
I visited and explored Blue Mountains and Warragamba dam in 2019. Raising the level of this reservoir will result in irreversible damage to the World Heritage property. No credible cumulative assessment has been done to understand how other impacts (like impacts of wildfires) will complement proposed impacts in dam raising. Assessment of potential alternative solutions for flood risk management is incomplete and non-convincing. The EIS does not fulfill simple requirements of the IUCN guidance on conducting impact assessment for heritage properties, thus making it of questionable value for the World Heritage convention purposes. In all these respects Australia’s compliance with World Heritage Convention is much lower in case of Warragamba dam compared with the case of Great Barrier Reef, where much more effort is being put by national government into resolving the issue. Thus likelihood is high it will be again questioned by the World Heritage Committee at the 45th session in Russia, and if dam raising happens listing of the property on “Heritage in Danger List” is unavoidable.
Recently, as a Coordinator of Rivers without Boundaries Coalition together with representatives of 15 NGOs from 8 countries made a submission and testimony to UNSW Senate regarding very poor performance of the SMEC consultancy, which was selected to complete the EIS, in many projects globally. (See Submission. No 229. INQUIRY INTO PROPOSAL TO RAISE THE. WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL. Organisation: Rivers without Boundaries International Coalition. Web site of the UNSW Senate available here https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=262#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses ).
Many projects developed with SMEC participation in several countries have resulted in substantial environmental damage and suffering of local communities. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-11/warragamba-dam-company-smec-accused-of-abusing-indigenous-rights/11589222.
For example, since 2003 SMEC has been engaged to conduct site investigations, prepare a detailed design and supervise construction for the 11MW Taishir hydro power project located on the Zavkhan river in the western area of Mongolia. While Synohydro was the contractor for construction, the transfer of expertise in all aspects of the project to the Mongolian state-owned Energy Authority was central to SMEC's role of designer and general supervisor (https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/news/newssmec-selected-for-mongolian-project). Taishir HPP has 3 turbines with 3.5MW capacity, but in real the maximum output from turbine reached only 2.5MW due to the incorrect modifications of equipment when it was being built and tested (.https://www.seforall.org/sites/default/files/Mongolia_RAGA_EN_Released.pdf). The project involves a large reservoir of almost 1 cubic kilometre volume on a small river, and the "hydrology risk" has not been carefully considered prior to project commitment. This resulted in extended reservoir filling duration due to drought means and deferred revenue to the owner, extending resource commitments of other parties (https://www.waterpowermagazine.com/projectprofiles/projectprofilesextreme-dam-building/ ).
The Zavkhan River is the sole source of water for several hundred families of indigenous nomadic herders in the area, with their community living along the Zavkhan River. According to local officials and community elders the herders were severely affected by losses of large portions of their herds while dam was filling in 2007-2015 as all flows in Zavkhan River was contained in dam to fill reservoir for several years (http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/river-diversion-project-spells-disaster/). This effect was not anticipated by dam designers and supervisors and led to massive outmigration of herders from ancestral lands. Since the hydropower station has begun to generate energy, herders reported large losses of livestock during winter when, contrary to natural hydrology, the dam releases its largest flows to support operation of the power station at peak level. The indigenous herders have since reported that their livestock have fallen through undermining of ice sheets by the dam’s fast release of water. They have also reported that their winter shelters for livestock (yurts and living quarters) have been flooded during peak winter flows, with the herders having to relocate their livestock and communities during these times. Herders claim that their cultural sites have been drowned by the reservoir, including portions of historic monastery lands .( http://www.sric.org/enr/docs/20170729_Taishir_Presentation.pdf ) Their losses during filling and operation of the dam have not been compensated.
Several EIA processes led by SMEC had substandard insufficient participation of indigenous communities while the company was siding with oppressive military regimes (See example from Myanmar: pages 35, 213-216 in “Knowing the Salween River: Resource Politics of a Contested Transboundary River” Editors Carl Middleton and Vanessa Lamb. Springer 2019. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-77440-4 )
While implementing water infrastructure projects the SMEC was also debarred for misconduct in several countries of Asia due to gross misconduct https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/09/28/world-bank-announces-settlement-relating-to-misconduct-in-world-bank-financed-projects-in-the-south-asia-region.
Given insufficient attention paid in current EIS to outstanding universal values of the World Heritage property and obvious neglect to indigenous values and rights of traditional land-holders we can conclude that SMEC and its sub-contractors have been doing the work on Warragamba Dam with the same inexcusable flaws they exhibited in projects implemented in Mongolia, Myanmar and other countries.
Given the appalling track record SMEC Engineering has with indigenous consultation and environmental assessments for large dam projects world-wide, we believe that the current EIS exhibits similar flaws and inconsistencies and cannot provide solid foundation for decision making on Warragamba Dam.
Sincerely,
Eugene Simonov
Doctor of Conservation
[email protected]
Rivers without Boundaries

To whom it may concern,
I have lived on the Hawkesbury at Lower Portland for 40 years and have seen many floods. These are a natural part of the river's life. There has been disagreement about the part Warragamba dam has played in flooding; whether helpful or harmful. Given that it is primarily focused on Sydney's water supply, flooding has taken second place.
Now with this new proposal reducing flooding is apparently the intention. However to achieve this end a large area of the World Heritage park will be damaged and lose its value.
Also I have no doubt that it will enable further development of the natural floodplain. This will degrade the health of the river and degrade the natural assets of the river valley and catchments.
For these two reasons I wish to register my opposition to the proposal to raise the dam wall.

Objection to Warragamba Dam proposal
I oppose the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam walls by 17 metres. Raising the dam walls could have a number of potentially damaging outcomes. These include the flooding of wild rivers, endangered flora communities and cultural sites. The proposal will also impact on the integrity of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.(BMWHA). Furthermore of particular interest to myself is the impact the proposal will have on the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater. The proposal has the potential to seriously effect vital breeding habitat of the Regent Honeyeater. The Burragorang Valley is a known breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters and could be impacted by the raising of the dam.
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as critically endangered at both state and federal level. The estimated number of individuals remaining in the wild could be as few as 350. There are so few birds that young birds are unable to learn the vocalisations that are vital for communication and hence the continued survival of the bird. With such a small number of individuals it would seem that protection of suitable habitat would be of the utmost importance. The National Recovery plan of 2016 state as one of its aims is to “Improve the extent and quality of regent honeyeater habitat”.
Raising the dam walls would seem to contradict these aims. The potential for damaging flooding could see habitat being degraded rather than improved.
The Regent Honeyeater’s habitat has already suffered greatly in the 2019/20 bushfires. Birdlife Australia modelling suggests that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater habitat was burnt. This modelling demonstrates the serious threat posed by the dam raising proposal. Any unburnt habitat remaining should be accorded the highest conservation priority in line with the recommendations in the National recovery plan.
Breeding habitat is also vital to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater. Breeding habitat is considered “habitat crucial to survival” under the National Recovery Plan. Known breeding sites are both essential to the bird’s survival as well as a vital link in gathering knowledge of the bird’s life cycle. It is important to study the causes of nesting success or failure. The Regent Honeyeater is known to nest in the area that could face flooding if this proposal goes ahead. With a population so small protecting known nesting sites is a key component of the bird’s on-going survival. It is completely at odds with the National Recovery plan for any further avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat.
I also strongly oppose the offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater. An offset should be the last option especially for such a critically endangered species as the Regent Honeyeater. This is clear in the government’s own policy framework principle 1 which states that ‘’ Impacts must be avoided first ‘’ before any offset are applied. In the case of a critically endangered species such as the Regent Honeyeater impact minimisation would only be achieved without raising the dam wall. A recent NSW parliamentary inquiry into the practice of offsetting was told that offsetting should not be allowed in certain habitats. As reported in the Guardian on the 21/10/2021 the inquiry was told that certain habitats should no longer be offset but instead should be protected entirely. I believe that remaining Regent Honeyeater would fall under this category.
In the case of the Regent Honeyeater offsetting is not an appropriate strategy. The population of birds is so small that any disturbance to their nesting sites could possibly see the birds disperse and thereby lose contact with breeding habitat. The National Recovery plan states that breeding habitat is ‘habitat critical for survival’ and therefore should be provided the ‘the highest level of protection’. Some areas are too important to be offset. Offsets should not be considered unless there is sufficient evidence that they will benefit the species. In this case there is no evidence that offsets will benefit the Regent Honeyeater.
Australia’s biodiversity has suffered greatly from habitat loss in the past and although there is growing awareness of the problem still not enough is being done to protect habitat in this country. The Regent Honeyeater is a critically endangered species whose remaining habitat is vital to its survival and this is why I oppose the raising the Warragamba Dam.
Warwick Mears 18/11/2021