Warragamba Dam Raising

I have included my residential address is in the ACT, and also a postal address, for we have owned a property at Godfrey's Creek NSW, for 28 years that provides Ecological Services for amongst others, threatened species like Swift Parrots and Grey Crowned Babblers. I am an avid bird watcher.
For a healthy economy we need a healthy planet, made up of a diverse and interconnected set of healthy building blocks. We are all interconnected and dependent on this complex web and its wellbeing. To lose one block in the wall may cause the wall to fall.
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 and Aboriginal Sites.

The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it 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 destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species as a whole.
The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
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.
There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.

Dams cause more destruction and negatives than positives. Look at Wivenhoe Dam for example. A dam cannot provide a water supply and flood mitigation at the same time. Also they gradually silt up and thus reduce storage capacity over time.

We need to learn from 1st Nations who have lived in this country for 60,000 plus years, how to live with all the beings that go to make up this wonderful Country, over thousands of generations, and not wipe out some due to short term non-strategic thinking and visions.
We have a duty and a responsibility to care for all of this Country for all the future generations, as 1st Nations Peoples have cared for this Country for thousands of generations.

To whom it may concern,

As a resident of the Blue Mountains, I have spent many hours enjoying the scenery and wilderness qualities of this area. Just last weekend I was bushwalking in the wilderness near the Cox's River, enjoying the serenity and beauty of a land largely untouched by humanity. As such the proposal surrounding the raising of Warragamba Dam raises serious concerns with me.
Firstly the fact that no surveys have been undertaken after the significant 2019-20 bushfires. The vicinity of Lake Burragorang was fortunately untouched, and would've provided much needed refuge for fauna escaping those devastating fires. There is no assessment to determine how many significant species now rely on this un-burnt area. The Regent Honeyeater is critically endangered, risking further habitat loss is not a good outcome if this project proceeds.
Flooding the wild Kowmung River does not preserve the UNESCO world heritage area of the Blue Mountains, nor does it protect significant Indigenous cultural heritage that remains in this wilderness area. I would specifically call out the lack of significant consultation with local Gundungurra Traditional Owners to identify culturally significant sites.

It is concerning that there is a lack of modelling and analysis into the benefits raising the dam wall will provide. I am not convinced that the significant costs, both financial and environmental, of this project are worth the benefits that may be provided in mitigating some flood risk. Surely less damaging projects and initiatives should be explored first, before such a high impact and damaging proposal is undertaken. Especially considering that Warragamba Dam constitutes only a portion of the catchment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River System.

I am opposed to this project to raise Warragamba Dam, the impacts of this project do not stack up for the potential benefits it may provide.
Our last remaining wild places should be fiercely protected, not damaged as a result of the state's actions.


Kind Regards,
Hayden

To whom it may concern,
I wish to express my opposition to the raising of the Warragamba damn wall. As a Blue mountains resident for more then 40 years I have spent a lot of time bushwalking and camping in the areas that will be affected. I am also concerned by the loss of habitat for our local fauna species and the possible destruction of sites of cultural significants to the local indigenous communities.

To whom it may concern,
We join others in our concern that there is this proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall , without considering other options to try to mitigate flooding downstream. We understand this move doesn't have the consent of the traditional Owners and will harm the World Heritage Site.

To whom it may concern,
As somebody who has lived in the Blue Mountains since I was four years old, I have come to love our natural enviroment. Living within a national park is something truly special, and I genuenly belive that the Blue Mountains are a unique and wonderful place. Which is why hearing about the plans to raise the Dam and flood our natural enviroment breaks my heart, and to be blunt, also enrages me.
The Greater Blue Mountains National Park is a UNESCO world herritige site, the native land of the Darug and Gundangurra nations, and a place that is truly special to all who call it home. To destroy such a place would show three things: 1. That we do not care about our heritige, history, or enviroment. 2. That we do not respect Indigenous Australians. To destroy the enviroment would be to further sever important ties to Country and further erode Darug and Gundangurra history and culture, continuing the hostility towards and the callous disreguard for traditional custodians that has been a part of our countries foundations since the colonists first arrived. 3. That those in authority do not care about those below them, and that they do not keep their promises. When the national park was declared a world heritige site, a promise was made that the nation would protect the area forever. This is a promise that should not be broken, especially not at a time in which the average Australians trust in the government is so non-existant.

In case it is not already abundantly clear, I strongly oppose the Dam. To build it is to destroy a one of a kind UNESCO World Herritige Site, further erode the culture and history of the Darug and Gundangurra peoples, and show that the state does not care about the wishes of the people it governs. The Dam must not go ahead.

To whom it may concern,
I live in the upper Blue Mountains, and I’m deeply concerned about the NSW Government’s proposal to increase the height of Warragamba Dam and the impact that will have on the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
I would like the Minister to consider the following when making his decision:
• If the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area has seven layers of legislative protection, how can the government disregard these protections? How many levels of protection does the area need in order for it to be completely protected?
• The raising of the dam wall will inundate over 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
• There are alternatives to raising the dam wall in order to mitigate damage in Western Sydney due to flooding such as building flood evacuation roads, lowering the current supply level of the current dam, acquisition of properties on the lower flood plain and reducing floodplain development.
• A cross-party New South Wales parliamentary committee has recommended the state government consider alternatives to its plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall.
• A 2017 Infrastructure NSW report on the Hawkesbury-Nepean valley flood risk management strategy states that the NSW Government intends to allow an additional 134,000 new residents to live on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain. How can the government knowingly put more people in harm’s way?
• Raising the dam wall will flood habitat for the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater, Koala colonies and Sydney’s last Emu population. At the recent cross-party New South Wales parliamentary committee, Ross Crates, a postdoctoral fellow at the Australian National University, said there were as few as 350 of the Regent Honeyeater left in the wild, with the majority of them in the Blue Mountains region.
• The lack of time spent assessing the impact on fauna in the area: 3.5 hours spent looking for Koalas and one day spent on the impact to aquatic life, including the threatened Platypus.
• The Black Summer fires of 2019/2020 destroyed 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. No post bushfire field surveys for threatened species have been undertaken to assess the damage inflicted by these fires.
• An estimated 1,500 Indigenous cultural heritage sites would be inundated by raising the dam wall, yet only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage.
• Raising the dam wall would cause irreversible damage to natural and cultural values which would be a clear breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
•
• I oppose the raising of the dam wall for the following reasons:
• After much work and dedication, the Greater Blue Mountains National Park received World Heritage Listing in 2000 and this listing will be at risk if the NSW Government goes ahead with this proposal. According to information provided on the NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment website, the listing was given in recognition of the area’s significant natural values. This website also states that the Greater Blue Mountains Area is one of the largest and most intact tracts of protected bushland in Australia. The raising of the dam wall would inundate and destroy vast areas of this protected bushland.
• The raising of the dam wall will not prevent flooding in low lying areas of Western Sydney. A 2015 NSW State Emergency Service report on the Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Plan states that an average of 45% of floodwaters originate from catchment areas that are not upstream of Warragamba Dam. How can we consider doing so much environmental damage by raising the wall when this action will not prevent flooding?
• Why is the government considering allowing more people to live on the floodplain if we know that major flood events will occur? It appears as though this decision is influenced more by economic considerations rather than public safety and protection of the environment.
• Why does nature always take second place to economic interests? The Regent Honeyeater is a critically endangered bird. An estimated 30,000 koalas were lost in the Black Summer fires of 2019/2020. I’m appalled that the NSW Government would consider inflicting more damage on the environment, the fauna and flora of the protected Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area for a proposal that will not stop flooding.
• The disregard for the Indigenous cultural heritage sites that will be inundated by raising the dam wall is extremely disappointing. It is disrespectful to our First Nations People.
• If this proposal goes ahead, it will further damage Australia’s international reputation in regard to our handling of environmental and Indigenous cultural issues.
• If this proposal goes ahead, future generations will not have the opportunity to experience the beauty of this wildness. What legacy are we leaving behind? What problems are we creating for future generations?

To whom it may concern,
I would like to register my wholehearted support for the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
All the citizens who live in their homes below the dam, live in legal, well established, residential areas. We need to allow the dam to be raised, to protect these people and their properties against the rare, extreme times when the reservoir can presently overtop the dam wall.
The raised dam wall will mean higher areas may become inundated on very rare occasions in order to reduce huge water overtopping the dam wall and as soon as possible will allow the safe and gradual release of water in a controlled manner.

Please register my strong, support for the dam wall to be raised.

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. It is both simplistic and flawed on many different levels and can be resolved by exploring and utilising diverse and complementary measures to manage flood risk in Western Sydney.
The most disturbing part of this proposal is the blatant devastation of World Heritage areas, National Park areas and loss of hundreds of Aboriginal cultural sites. Over 6,000 hectares of natural areas will be devastated, over 60 kilometres of wilderness rivers will be impacted, impact on native species as well as driving threatened species to extinction and over $2 billion in biodiversity offsets that would need to be found to compensate for these losses, confirms the outstanding natural values of this area and that this proposal will be the largest destruction of conservation land in NSW.
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the last 5 years and is also flawed. Damage and impacts have been underestimated due to inadequate field work for example only 3.5 hours spent surveying for koalas and 1 day spent surveying for platypus across 65 kilometres of watercourse that will be intermittently inundated by the raised dam wall. The EIS also omitted areas of flood damage during the biodiversity offset valuation, no wilderness impact analysis was attempted and only about ¼ of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage.
The Warragamba Dam is utilised for both water storage and flood mitigation, a very fine balancing act OR contradictory purpose. Dams can only capture small to medium floods. Larger floods will overtop any dams, no matter how high they are built. Yet there is potential for an extra 130,000 new developments in the Hawkesbury Nepean valley. Furthermore, the Warragamba catchment accounts for 55% of the floodwaters for the HN valley. The other 45% come from major tributaries in the Hawkesbury catchment such as Grose, MacDonald and Colo Rivers. The catchment is further challenged by the narrow sandstones gorges that backs floodwaters into the catchment, causing flooding on the floodplains. No matter how high the dam is constructed, it will not prevent flooding downstream.
It is very disappointing to see that when the NSW government assessed flood control options, it only evaluated the options where it would reduce the costs of flood damage vs capital costs of implementing flood measures. Not even, the upgrade to the road system in the Hawkesbury Nepean valley to a consistent higher elevation as an improvement to evacuation routes was considered in the cost/benefit analysis. Road users in the valley would greatly value roads that can also improve road safety and traffic times, let alone better evacuation routes.
The NSW Government is absolutely right that something needs to be done about flood mitigation in the HN valley but the raising of the dam wall is an insufficient solution. I urge the NSW government to show stronger leadership on the issue of flood risk management by exploring the many diverse and complementary options available. Some of these include:
• Buying back some of the areas that should not have been allowed to be developed in Western Sydney. This is irresponsible governance and poor urban planning.
• Poor urban planning is the main cause of the increased flood risk in this valley. Ensuring that people don’t live on flood prone lands will save lives and property damage when floods occur and this can be achieved by limiting further development on the floodplain.
• Utilising this land for more appropriate use such as farming, means that agriculture is occurring on some of the richest soils in Sydney and will thus increase the capacity of the Sydney food bowl to support our city into the future by building resilience in our food system.
• Upgrading arterial roads in the HN valley to be at a consistent higher elevation providing residents better options when evacuating from flood waters. These roads will offer additional benefits such as better road safety, reduced traffic times etc. Currently many of the roads that people access to leave floodwaters are located in low lying areas and hence why people get cut off in floods.
• Develop, diversify and improve water security measures e.g managing groundwater, desal plants, recycling waste water, water use efficiency etc. In the last drought, we all witnessed the precarious nature of our dam for water security. Desal plants lowers this risk during drought.

To whom it may concern,
This submission opposes the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons.
1. The EIS is unsatisfactory because Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Post bushfire surveys were not undertaken. There is serious concern about the professional standards of the engineering firm SMEC as they are rejected by the World Bank.
2, A serious loss of Aboroginal Cultural Sites, flora and fauna, including Threatened Ecological Communities and Threatened species will occur with flooding.
3. It will seriously negatively impact the World Heritage Area and wild river systems in the valleys.
4. Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by raising the dam wall. The Traditional Owners, the Gundungurra people have not given consent to the raising of the dam wall. It is shameful of the NSW Government putting traditional owners in this position of having to fight and struggle for their land.

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to raising the dam wall. There are very viable alternatives that are both cost effective and feasible. Ensuring safety on the floodplain and not raising the wall aren't mutually exclusive and it is incredibly frustrating that this is the narrative. The "people's safety" mantra does not hold up to scrutiny. Do the right thing and don't destroy further parts of the National Park when there are good alternatives.

To whom it may concern,
I am greatly concerned at the proposal to raise Warragamba dam.

The raised water levels will inundate and destroy the character of riparian habitat in catchment streams. These crucial habitats support unique flora and fauna and help protect catchment water quality.
Varying water levels will contribute to streambank slumping and erosion, with a loss of streamside vegetation and impacts on downstream water quality.

I understand that the higher water levels will also destroy many significant indigenous cultural artefacts and sites, which is surely unacceptable.

To whom it may concern,
Having watched the webinar twice and reviewed the EIS I am not convinced the proposed raising of the dam wall is desirable.
The huge cost. The loss of World Heritage Habitat and Indigenous sites are just three areas of concern.
In addition it will still flood. While I understand the major flood waters come from the Burragorang Catchment little attention (modelling) seems to have been paid to the catchment downstream and choke points. . However when I queried how much in the recent flood came from downstream of Burragorang .... that study will be done shortly was the reply. Not good enough.
I am concerned that if the dam wall is raised more land will be released on the flood plain for deveopement which will inevitably flood.
I feel the people of the Hawkesbury are being misled about the effectiveness of raising the dam wall and the people of Australia are losing important world heritage and cultural sights
It has been reported that the environmental assessment is flawed. The government needs to rethink this and look for alternatives

To whom it may concern,
The raising of the dam wall will destroy thousands of hectares of undisturbed land containing many rare and possibly unknown species and aboriginal heritage sites. There is so little original forest left that this can't be allowed to happen.
Better managment of the dam levels and downstream development will be far more effective.
The cost that has been calculated in property losses in a 1 in a 1000 year flood is high, but the cost of the loss of that habitat is beyond financial computation.

To whom it may concern,
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.
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.
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.
Over 1500 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.

To whom it may concern,
I am so concerned that the possibility of raising the Warragamba Dam wall is still being considered. At a time when the whole world is under such a great threat from climate change we need to be concentrating on saving biodiversity not threatening it.
The news this week about the Gardens of Stone eco tourism demonstrates how important natural areas are to the economy is at odds with trying to put more housing on a flood plain and risking more lives. Raising the wall will not prevent flooding - especially as weather events get more severe - but will destroy so much Aboriginal heritage and endangerd species habitat.
Please reconsider and do another EIS.

To whom it may concern,
I am making a submission against the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
There has been advice from several government departments to the effect that the environmental assessment undertaken is not adequate. One of the concerns is that no comparisons were made with other solutions for flood mitigation for the Western Sydney floodplains. Alternative flood mitigation is likely to be more cost effective. By persuing the raising of the dam wall the government may be using public funds recklessly.
It seems obvious to me that Australians care about the environment and know they need to share and care for other species that should be thriving in this remarkable country. I think Australians would want to see the highest standards for an Environmental Impact Statement which impacts a World Heritage area.
Yours sincerely,

"I write to you to voice my concerns regarding the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam.
I grew up in the Blue Mountains; I’ve hiked through the valleys, glimpsed cultural scared trees, crisscrossed the rivers, and admired the endangered native wildlife that will all be lost if the dam wall is raised. This year North Richmond, Windsor and many other towns were completely flooded and cut off. The worst flooding seen since 1967. I have friends who lost their homes in this event.
I have been following the reports in the media surrounding the disjointed process that led to the proposal to this day. They tell us of the lack of consultation with First Nations people, incomplete and rushed Environmental Impact Statements and concern from the Insurance Council of Australia and the SES regarding development in flood prone areas. There are further reports stating UNESCO’s concern on the World Heritage status of the Blue Mountains National Park. Not one bit of information I have seen has given me any confidence in the suitability of project.
In 2021 one year on from the unforgivable destruction of the Juukan Gorge cultural site where 46000 years of First Nations and human culture destroyed for ever, I am disgusted to think that your government is considering the destruction of more First nations culture. Do you want that responsibility to be on your account?
The Environmental Impact Statement released by the NSW government fails to address vital issues. It has been modelled on a 1 in 20-year flood event not 1 in 100-year event. In our changing global climate weather patterns are evolving and changing, becoming evermore unpredictable. Flood events are becoming more common and more severe. An event like this year’s rainfall and flooding has not been addressed. The proposal has the interest of developers in mind, keen to get their hands on dangerous flood prone land for densely developed estates. In February this year the Insurance Council of Australia withdrew it’s support of the dam and the development of the flood prone Nepean and Windsor area.
In March this year a senior SES member voiced his disapproval of development in the Windsor area they stated:
"There is a capacity in places like Windsor to kill heroic numbers of people because they won't be able to be got out in time,"
"That means that you should be focusing in my view on evacuation routes, building up roads so that they are above all of the very worst floods and they buy time to get people out."
How could you allow the development of vast swathes of uninsurable homes, risking the lives of your citizens and the lives of their rescuers?



Habitat destruction is one of the biggest issues facing our endangered wildlife. The raising of the dam would permanently destroy fragile and invaluable habitat.
The draft EIS concludes that the project poses potential significant impacts to contemporary breeding habitat for the Regent Honeyeater that “cannot be avoided or minimised.”
The Regent Honeyeater is listed as Critically Endangered at both a state and federal level, with as few as 350 individuals remaining in the wild. 
Modelling by BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires. Protecting remaining unburnt breeding habitat is of the highest conservation priority.
There are only a handful of contemporary breeding sites for Regent Honeyeater and during the assessment of the project a total of twenty-one (21) Regent Honeyeaters, including active nests, were recorded within the impact area.
Any breeding habitat is considered habitat critical for survival of the species under the National Recovery Plan for Regent Honeyeater and it 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 destruction or degradation of a contemporary breeding site for Regent Honeyeaters would have dire consequences for the species.
The destruction and degradation of breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters is incongruous with the time and money that the Federal and NSW Governments have invested into the recovery program, including the Regent Honeyeater Captive Breeding and Release program.
It is unacceptable and inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur.
I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater.
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.
There is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset, and any offsets would be unlikely to provide direct benefits for both the local affected population and the species.
The increased dam level would also destroy the Kowmung River one of NSW’s last true wild rivers.



By approving the proposal of raising Warragamba dam you will hold the responsibility for destroying thousands of years of First Nation’s Peoples history.
You will be responsible for every endangered animal, every fragile ecosystem, and every critically endangered species erased from our planet.
You will be responsible for every home lost, every family made homeless and unable to build a new home.
You will be responsible for every life lost in flooding events impacted by the dam.
You will lose the support from me and my peers in any NSW election in the future.
I strongly oppose the proposition of raising the Warragamba Dam wall and encourage you to not to support the raising of Warragamba Dam.

To whom it may concern,
Please reconsider the pan to raise the height of Warragamba Dam.
In order to build housing on the Hawkesbury flood plain, developers want the government to raise the height of Warragamba Dam.
It is neither appropriate nor socially beneficial to build housing on the flood plain.
Raising the height of the Dam will flood rare bushland and result in loss of habitat for many native species, purely for the benefit of the developers.
The plan to raise the dam does not have the consent of the traditional owners.
The plan threatens the integrity of World Heritage and First Nations cultural sites.
The Environmental Impact Statement has been altered by Government officials against the wishes of its authors and does not support the plan to raise the dam.

To whom it may concern,
Please consider God's creation -that we as christians have been given the the privileged job of being stewards of the earth. To look after our home and not to artificially create problems.

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Adam Wall.
To raise the Warragamba Dam wall is an environmental disaster. The loss of this area of the Blue Mountains National Park and it's unique wilderness, habitat for endangered animals such as the koala and regent honeyeater and Aboriginal heritage sites is greed over value.
I am completely against this development and am disgusted that you and the NSW Liberal Government consider it to be good planning. You have lost my vote for the foreseeable future.