Warragamba Dam Raising

My observation is that the Environmental Impact Statement could be clearer about the effects of the proposed project on the Lake Burragorang Special Areas. Section 20.3.10 of the EIS is clear that the project would cause flood water to temporarily encroach the current Schedule 1 Special Area and a small part of the current Schedule 2 Special Area. Section 20.5.4.4 states that temporary flood inundation will not change access to areas of NPW Act Estate because inundation will only be within Special Areas where access is restricted. These sections imply the current Special Areas will not change as a result of the project because they are defined by the full water storage level rather than flood water level, but it could be made clearer and explained further. The EIS could also clarify the effect of the project on the small area of inundated Schedule 2 Special Area. This area is currently accessible by the public on foot, but would presumably be inaccessible in a flood as it would be inundated.

The Special Areas are important to me because they define land areas with restricted free public access. Schedule 2 Special Areas are regularly used by the public for recreation, research, and other interests and a change in any type of Special Area would change the available use of public land. The EIS could be clearer about follow on effects of the project on the Special Areas.

This objection is lodged for several reasons including: The general inadequacy of the environmental impact statement dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage; the lack of acknowledgement of cultural loss caused by initial flooding of the Burragorang Valley; and, the failure to address alternative options.

I am opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam wall for the following reasons:
1. The resulting flooding of rivers and bushland will involve unacceptable damage to natural resources of World heritage value. World heritage listed places are precious resources that should be protected above all other considerations.
2. Lack of adequate consideration of other alternatives to raising of the dam wall, including avoiding further development of the flood plain, and reducing dam storage levels and providing other sources of clean water for community use (e.g. recycled stormwater)
3. The loss of irreplaceable cultural heritage important to local Aboriginal communities.
4. Lack of adequate environmental and heritage impact assessments for the project. The extent and quality of assessments to-date is poor.

Hi,
I'm against the dam wall raising for many reasons including the destruction of significant wildlife habitat and First Australian heritage.
Enough is enough we have destroyed so much of our natural resources, especially the irresponsible land clearing and with the destruction of large amounts of vegetation with the recent widespread fires we need to conserve as much as possible. It is all connected.
The costs of raising the wall outweigh the doubtful benefits, which governments always overstate ( I feel the environmental impact statement is compromised & doesn't address the issues accurately). Offsets do not address the issue & probably cause more imbalance.
The raising of the wall also impacts the ebb & flow of the flood plain, another critical environment that needs high protection (not by artificially means ie raising the dam wall).
As a keen birdwatcher, I'm very concerned about the potential destruction of important habitat for endangered animals including the Regent Honeyeater - as other reports / decisions have made clear suitable habitat needs to be protected (& enhanced) & the raising of the wall clearly goes against this.
The wall raising would also destroy significant First Australian sites and is of the ilk of the recent mining destruction of Juukan Gorge.
We need to protect our natural & cultural environments- not destroy them forever as the wall raising would do.
Thanks for your consideration.

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply concerned about the raising of the dam, mainly due to the areas of bushland that it will flood. I have not always been connected to the land, but recently in the past year, I have begun to bushwalk with my partner. Whilst this is a new hobby for me, for her, it is a deep love. Observing her connection to the land and how she changes when walking, or camping on the land has opened my eyes to how important our natural environment is.
To flood this world heritage area would not only trample the love and connection bushwalkers share with the land, but it would also be destroying land that is not ours to destroy. The Gundungurra Traditional owners have not given any consent to this project and therefore, it shows a deep lack of respect and honour to a people who have loved and cared for the land for over 80,000 years. That is something that makes me feel physically sick.
Yours sincerely,

To whom it may concern,
I live, work and walk in the Blue Mountains. I share this extraordinary world-renowned place through the generosity of the people of the Eora Nation. I also share this location with exquisite flora and fauna, some of which are only located here. Our bread and butter is tourist revenue. Please be long-sighted and stop the Warragamba Dam Raising Project.

To whom it may concern,
Please do not proceed with the ludicrous raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. The environmental and ecological damage would be immense. We do not need more people in the natural floodplain which has high quality soil perfect for growing vegetables and other food.

NSW Premier,
Dear Sir,
Please don't allow the Warragamba Dam wall to be raised.
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.

To whom it may concern,

Raising the wall of Warragamba Dam is a bad idea, and it is a bad idea for many reasons.
It’s a bad idea environmentally. The flooding of any World Heritage-listed is a bad idea. The need for such action must be completely overwhelming before any such thing could be considered. And in this case, there simply aren’t compelling reasons to do it.
Will building a higher wall “save” the low-lying areas further downstream? That’s very questionable. Raising the height of the dam wall would only hold back water coming from the Warragamba River catchment and will do nothing to stop waters coming down the Nepean and its tributaries, as well as water coming from other tributaries to the Nepean/Hawksbury system.
Will a higher dam wall provide enough assurance against flooding further down the system? No. It won’t. It may stop some flooding, but it is no guarantee. The easier, cheaper and more reliable way to prevent the inundation of houses and businesses, is to simply restrict building on floodplains within the Nepean/Hawksbury system. The millions spend of raising the dam wall cannot completely mitigate against flood events, so that any approved building on the flood plains will put the NSW at financial risk should a flood occur.
It would be better to be safe and not build on the flood plain, than sorry that the dam wall didn’t deliver what was optimistically promised.
And then there is simply the financial cost. Of all the infrastructure projects in train and on the horizon, this is simply the most unnecessary. You have to raise the wall the offer any chance of building on the flood plain, but that still presents an unacceptable and unnecessary risk.
It has recently been reported that NSW Treasury doesn’t have enough money to deliver on existing promises and that some projects need to be delayed or cancelled. The raising on the Warragamba Dam wall is an obvious choice for cancelation, and I think it would be very sensible and prudent to cancel this plan now.

To whom it may concern,
I watch with despair the 'death by a thousand cuts' of our natural heritage. Our flora, fauna and climate have suffered enough. Our indigenous people have lost more than the rest of us can imagine.
It's time we turned to alternative solutions to house and protect our rising population from flooding, rather than destroying the environment. Raising the wall of the Warragamba down is a costly quick fix. Let's implement the myriad of other strategies that can contribute to flood mitigation. Let's re-green western Sydney and cool the air.
It's time to find other ways.

To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for over 15 years and have a deep connection with and fascination for the area as an avid bushwalker and a descendant of one of the first Europeans to cross the Blue Mountains.
I am strongly opposed to the plan to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam. It is irresponsible on environmental, cultural and social grounds.
Firstly, the inundation caused by raising the dam wall would destroy around 6,000 hectares of wilderness and forever change the landscape of the Blue Mountains World Heritage-listed area. Exquisite, critically endangered species like the Regent Honeyeater, already devastated by the 2019-2020 bushfires, would be threatened with extinction. At a time when action on climate change is critical for the survival of our planet, the heedless destruction of wilderness and animal species is utterly counter-intuitive.
Raising the dam wall is also completely at odds with the State of New South Wales's obligation to protect the cultural heritage sites of our First Nations people. It is estimated that at least 1,500 sites of cultural significance to the Gundungurra would be inundated if the dam wall were raised. We can never hope to remedy past wrongs and move forward to an era of equality and mutual respect between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians if those in positions of authority continue to have total disregard for the deep connections between indigenous people and country.
Finally, the flood mitigation argument for raising the dam wall is not sound. Scientific analysis of the floods in March this year has shown that a higher dam wall would not necessarily have resulted in a lower maximum flood height. We know that climate change will make extreme weather events more frequent. Spending millions, possibly billions of dollars on a project that will lull residents of the Hawkesbury-Nepean flood plain into a false sense of security, but will ultimately fail to protect them, is not just indefensible; it may also end in wide-scale litigation.
The plan to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam is untenable based on environmental, cultural and social considerations. Please show responsible leadership and abandon it.

I am opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam. I am horrified that this proposal is being considered.
I am a resident of Sydney and have had a close association with Blue Mountains National Park over the past thirty years, both as a bushwalker and supporter of the local community.
In 2000 the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was added to the UNESCO list of World Heritage sites. Our nation undertook to protect and preserve its land, rivers, flora and fauna for generations to come.
It is outrageous that this is being swept aside in a cynical attempt to increase housing density on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain.
If the dam wall raising proceeds Australia is likely to be in breach of its obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
It sets a dangerous precedent and will sit very poorly with the voting public.

To whom it may concern,
I object strongly to the dam being raised on the grounds of damage to aboriginal heritage, damage to habitats ab\lready under severe stress from bushfires, lack of adequate studies of affected species and the resultant loss of habitat for threatened species, which may be catastrophic, however we do not have any credible information to make that assessment at present.
The most fundamental problem with raising the dam wall is that it has not been shown to necessarily mitigate any floods, can only hold potentially a couple of extra daysrain at the last floods dam overflow rate and would give an absolutely false sense ofsecurity to anyone living downstream. The rainfall modelling is not likley to be valid, particularly as we are not on track for a 1.5 degree limit to global warming but at least 2.4 degrees, more if current Federal LNP policy is continued. Extreme weather, including rainfall, will be much heavier and more frequent with at least another 7% moisture in the atmosphere by 2050 on the current best estimates of what we are actually likely to have as a global temperature rise. All modelling would now need to be redone and an economic cost benefit assessment of raising the dam wall undertaken. There appears to be no economic case at present, just a self interest case by property developers.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of Warragamba dam and its impact on the National parks that would be flooded as a result.
The EIS did not consider other options and the fact that no matter how high the wall goes flooding in the Nepean and Hawkesbury valleys will still occur.
We frequently travel to the blue mountains and value the presevation of environment there and the preservation of habitat and species

Submission-Warragamba Dam Raising Project-SS1-8441

My name is Anne Savige and I live in Berwick, Victoria.

Why I reject the raising of the Warragamba dam walls

I learned about the plight of the regent honeyeater several years ago through the Victorian government's SWIFFT website critically endangered (CR) listings. It was listed as CR in my LGA, the City of Casey in 2013, although sadly it is rarely if at all sighted today. The Regent once frequented this area in large flocks but since the 1950s their population here as in other states has steadily dwindled. Wild numbers in Victoria are as few as 50 now, so low that the captive breeding and release program had to move to NSW where higher numbers (300-400) meant it would have a greater chance of survival.

Scientists say loss of critical habitat is the main reason for the Regent's demise and it is the main reason why I strongly oppose the NSW government’s plan to raise the Warragamba Dam walls. This plan will flood old-growth forests in the Burragorang Valley located at the foothills of the Blue Mountains, which is one of the few remaining critical habitats where regent honeyeaters nest, breed and feed. The species population is extinct in South Australia, declared critically endangered nationally, in NSW and Victoria. It will not survive if we don’t pull out all stops to protect it.

It is incongruous why the NSW government plans to destroy essential remaining habitat in the Burragorang Valley. Raising the walls will not prevent future flooding in this area. Alternatives must be sought such as buy back of private land and dwellings and implementation of safe evacuation plans. Communities should not be settling in flood prone areas- they are not safe and will become more dangerous due to climate change. Governments must seriously address the development problem of western Sydney, raising the walls is not the solution.

The Regent's pollinating role is crucial to protecting natural habitats which we are losing to unmitigated development, indiscriminate land clearing and wildfires. After the catastrophic summer fires of 2019-2020 that destroyed vast forested and woodland areas and displaced 3 billion animals there is an even greater urgency to protect habitat and protect these rare birds. BirdLife Australia suggested that up to 50% of contemporary Regent Honeyeater foraging and breeding habitat was burnt in the 2019/20 bushfires alone. Matt Kean NSW environment minister said he was concerned about the figures in the wake of the fires and the need for greater habitat protection.

To reiterate, scientists say loss of critical habitat is the main reason for the Regent's demise and it is the main reason why I strongly oppose the NSW government’s plan to raise the Warragamba Dam walls. This plan will flood old-growth forests in the Burragorang Valley located at the foothills of the Blue Mountains, which is one of the few remaining critical habitats where regent honeyeaters nest, breed and feed. The species population is extinct in South Australia, declared critically endangered nationally, in NSW and Victoria. It will not survive if we don’t pull out all stops to protect it.

My interest

During retirement and recent Victorian lockdowns my interest in bird watching has increased. I love our birds - their songs, colours and behaviour. More importantly they protect our ecosystems which enhance biodiversity much needed for our future and the future of the planet. Sometimes it takes a pandemic to discover how unique, extraordinary and diverse our Australian native birds are and the essential role they play in our ecosystems. It is encouraging that Australians are embracing our birds like never before - participating in activities such as bird watching and joining in Birdlife Australia’s annual bird count which has grown exponentially in the last two years. I, along with 9,133 Australians voted for the Regent in the Guardian’s Birdlife Australia ‘Bird of the Year’ competition in 2021. Remarkably it made it into sixth place which is quite amazing when most Australians have probably never seen it and especially not in the wild, but we remain optimistic. It has captured our interest, it's on our radar and we want it to survive and thrive as it once did across southern and eastern Australia.

Why the Regent Honeyeater is important

Apart from its striking black and gold beauty, I learnt that this small bird is a flagship bird which means it has a huge impact on biodiversity. It is a major pollinator of native plant species and so maintains healthy forests which provide habitat for other wildlife including the swift parrot, hooded robin, squirrel glider, painted honeyeater and brush-tailed phascogale. (Australian Geographic issue 160, January-February, 2021).

Tim Low, highly regarded author (Where Song Began), biologist and environmental consultant said that as the regent honeyeaters disappear, noisy miners take over, increasing their populations and driving other smaller species out. The knock on effect is disturbing because we are left with too many noisy miners! According to Low these miners are Australia’s poor pollinators (range ~50-100 metres) which is even less than bees.. Experts such as Dean Ingwersen who leads the breeding recovery program says the Regent relies on large tracts of spotted gum-ironbark woodlands, which protect it from noisy miners who take over fragmented bush. The Regent is a very active bird and has been noted to feed young 23 times per hour. (NSW Government Office of Environment and Heritage). They need a high energy diet to survive and breed successfully. The richest and best sources of nectar flow from mature trees such as the box ironbark habitat which unfortunately has largely been cleared.

An ANU study lead author Dr Crates says that the Regent has become so rare in the wild that young male birds are failing to learn the species' unique song, and will not be able to attract females in the future, another sign that could indicate that the bird is near extinction. ABC March 2021. Sadder still is the fact we may no longer hear it at all, reminiscent of Silent Spring.

Respect the world heritage and Indigenous culture

I am concerned that governments in Australia do not respect and appreciate the cultural, social, environmental value of the Blue Mountains as a World Heritage site and its unique Indigenous cultural sites which will be impacted by raising the Warragamba Dam wall.

Respect Australia's nature laws, scientists, partner and volunteer organisations

It is incongruous how the NSW government can spend taxpayer money on one hand to protect the Regent from extinction, while on the other hand massively fund a project to flood a key habitat which will surely jeopardize its existence? It is unacceptable and not in keeping with the National Recovery Plan for any avoidable loss or degradation of breeding habitat to occur. 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”.

Please listen and take long-standing expert advice of research and recovery teams trying to save the Regent from extinction by maintaining vital habitats and reinvigorating deleted populations through active breeding and release programs. Volunteer organisations also deserve our respect for the countless hours spent monitoring these critical bird populations.

I strongly oppose the Project’s offset strategy for the Regent Honeyeater. It is an ill suited response to proposed biodiversity loss and especially for critical habitat so important to the survival of the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that breeding habitat for Regent Honeyeaters can be successfully offset and any offsets would not provide direct benefits for the local population affected and the species.

Destroying habitat diminishes all our lives. I totally reject the NSW government’s plan to raise the Warragamba Dam walls. Please find an alternative.


Kind regards,
Anne Savige

Being an active bushwalker for many years, I strongly oppose the proposal to raise Warragamba Dam wall. The damage that will be caused by the resulting flooding has been well documented and is unacceptable in this unique natural area. Our environment is an asset for all of us as a nation and must be protected,

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.
• 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.
•
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
I am a Mortdale girl, and my Kate father was a Penshusrt boy who loved the shire. One of my first memories is a picnic to Warragamba dam, we all enjoyed to man made wonder of this dam that supplied water to Sydney, but we also loved the bush and the beauty that surrounds the dam.
If the dam wall is raised what will be lost will be lost forever, we will lose so much biodiversity, so much beauty and homes to many species of animals and plants.
Humans keep multiplying and spreading and we will always have excuses to flood, dam, cut down, dig up nature and we should stop and think... this dam wall should be left as it is. Yes Sydney will have another drought, but we have desal plants that we pay for all year round anyway.
please do not raise this dam wall, find another way.
my whole family still lives in Mortdale and Oatley and my heart is still in the area. Leave Warragamba alone I say.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose raising the Warragamba Dam wall.
There is too much at stake - the lands of the Aboriginal people where cultural practices have occurred for thousands of years and should for thousands more, and the flora and fauna of the Blue Mountains National Park. Our unique blessings and responsibilities.
As a Landcarer and Scout Leader, there's nothing better for youth and families than time encploring, protecting and appreciating our unique bush land.
There are alternatives and it's your duty to investigate and find a solution that future generations will thank you for.

To whom it may concern,
As a member of the public and local community, someone who you are meant to be representing, I ask you to please not raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
It does not take much research to realise the hugely negative impacts that raising the wall will have on it's surrounding environment. The EIS that was released is clearly flawed in many aspects. The terrible impact that raising the dam wall will have is not reversible. I know you know this.
Even if you still believe the EIS is factual and believe the environmental impacts will be minimal, there are many studies that say the opposite. Is it worth even a 50-50 chance at ruining a beautiful environment, likely killing many animals and plants and destorying historic cultural sites forever?
The world is realising that we must take better care of our environment. As a decision maker with power, do you want to be on the wrong side of history and be remembered for short term, money hungry decisions that ruin things for future generations. Or do you want to leave a legacy for your children and others, to be part of a positive, forward thinking change that actually cared and listened to the people. Do you want to look back on your life or have others look back on it as having done something good or bad?
I implore you to please not raise the Warramaba Dam level.