Warragamba Dam Raising

After a lifetime spent holidaying in the towns and villages of the Blue Mountains and enjoying its breathtaking, world heritage listed natural environment, home to such a diverse range of native birds and animals, we were finally in a position to move to the upper mountains nine years ago.

Now, as residents of this very special region, we wish to make a submission regarding the recently released Environmental Impact Statement for the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

Of major concern to us is an EIS that we perceive to be lacking in the essential integrity, rigour and appropriate consultation required when covering such a significant proposal.

Actions surrounding the EIS that we believe the Minister needs to carefully consider include:-

• Threatened species surveys used in the EIS were carried out prior to the destructive 2020 bushfires that devastated 81% of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. With just 3.5 hours spent looking for Koalas during the assessment and a single day spent assessing the impacts to aquatic life, it would seem both obvious and essential that, at the very least, rigorous threatened species surveys need to be undertaken post 2020 bushfires.

• Two experts hired to assess the impact on threatened species from raising the Warragamba Dam wall have stated their findings were significantly edited to suggest a less concerning outcome.

• Another ecologist who was not involved with the project, stated he had seen multiple instances of selective editing to favour the proponent’s interests when he compared the draft EIS with the final report.

• The former NSW SES Deputy Commissioner and flood expert, Chas Keys, has referred to the project as flawed and recommended it not be proceeded with.

• A parliamentary inquiry into the proposal to reduce flood risks in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley has resulted in the committee recommending lowering the full supply level of the existing dam, improved evacuation routes for Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley residents and the consideration of buying back flood-prone land among alternatives to raising the wall.

• The inquiry also heard disturbing evidence regarding lack of integrity during consultation with traditional owners on the impact the project will have on Aboriginal heritage sites.

• Heritage NSW has criticised the consultation with traditional owners as inadequate, saying modelling was needed to determine the likely impacts on cultural heritage from inundation. The Commonwealth Government has estimated at least 1,500 indigenous cultural heritage sites would be inundated by a raised dam wall.


Based on the information contained in the EIS, we strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

Having now lived in the Blue Mountains for nine years, we have witnessed the devastation wrought by nature where development and housing has been allowed to occur in areas where it is totally inappropriate due to the likelihood of bushfire, flooding, landslides etc. This is just looking at the potential loss of human life in such cases and not taking into account the significant loss of our fragile environment, endangered native species and invaluable indigenous cultural heritage sites in the case of the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. In light of recent atrocities, where sacred indigenous sites have been destroyed by huge corporations in order to create ever growing profits and subsequently suffered the wrath of outraged investors, we would like to think our own government is more in tune with public sentiment regarding such wanton destruction of cultural heritage.

No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising are outlined in the assessment. The alternatives to raising the dam wall exist and should be properly assessed and debated by all stakeholders.


Ian & Kate Rochford

I have lived in the lower Blue Mountains for 40 years. I am an active member of Bush and Landcare groups and have a keen interest in ecological issues. I have worked for local government for over 40 years, 33 of those with Penrith City Council. My bushwalking and employment experience has provided a detailed knowledge of the issues raised in the EIS. I am aware of the important events that impact communities down and up stream of the dam and the issues that they are deeply concerned about. I also have considerable experience in conducting and reviewing probabilistic analysis to determine risks of hazardous events.

During my employment with Penrith Council, I was involved in the assessment and inspection of developments in flood prone areas such as Wallacia, Llandilo, Londonderry and Berkshire Park. I witnessed the adoption of flood levels for these developments. The levels initially covered a 1 in 40 year event. Subsequently it was raised to a 1 in 100 year event. This was reclassified to a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) in recognition that there was no certainty that flooding to this level would only occur once in 100 years but rather, there was a low percentage of it occurring and reoccurring at any time. Also, changes occurred such as, the once flood free areas of Emu Plains were reviewed and included as areas of inundation requiring special treatments to mitigate the flood risk. I note that the latest terminology applied to developments is based on the maximum probable risk.

These changes demonstrate that flood mitigation is a moving target. As more information is available, additional requirements have been applied. In earlier times, the adopted restrictions were considered to be adequate. More recent experience and analysis has proven the earlier requirements to have been wanting. Based on past experience, the latest initiative to raise the dam is likely to suffer the same fate. The commitment of significant funds and resources to this project may leave little room to make further adjustments in the future. This juncture provides an opportunity to use the resources and funds to solve a long standing problem rather than mitigating the risks with short term strategies.

The EIS has relied on past events and predictions of the impact of climate change to formulate the latest strategy to mitigate the risk to downstream residents and infrastructure. Firstly, past events are not necessarily a reliable predictor of future events. Also, climate change is a catalyst for a range of varying weather events that can be extremely difficult to predict. If, for instance, if the inputs to the modelling differ from the actual conditions experienced, the predicted outcomes are unlikely to occur resulting in inaccuracies. Admittedly, a large range of data was evaluated and selected for the EIS analysis, however, despite the adoption of a many probabilities, application of sensitivity analysis and use of safety factors to to undertake this analysis, the unknown and largely unpredictable consequences of a climate system undergoing changes due to increasing energy levels, challenges the robustness of the predictions of this analysis. On top of this, the assumptions adopted in forming the proposed solution require rigorous consideration to ensure that they are conservative, prudent and reliable. Can we be certain of the outcomes of the modelling?

For example, it is claimed that the additional water above the supply level will only need to be held for up to a maximum of 10 days. What happens if the water cannot be released for say a month or more due to unusual the repetition of high rainfall events resulting from unpredicted climate change impacts on the local weather pattern? Does this mean that the flooding of bushland will have a long term affect on the habitat and consequently, the flora and fauna that relies on the shelter, food, germination, etc. that the habitat provides. Are the assumptions reliable and robust?

The objectives of this proposal are not met. It is claimed that the proposal will mitigate the risk and while this may be so for now, how long will it be before additional measures will be needed? Mitigation is a short term strategy that does not adequately cater for a long term problem. It is stated that the additional capacity of the dam is required to ensure that the risk to life and damage to life saving infrastructure is minimised to agreed low levels. This cannot be guaranteed by the proposal given the unpredictable nature of climate change.

Currently there is a risk to people living in the flood plain and in the future without further intervention, there will be a risk to even more people. The solution to these problems is to encourage future residents to settle elsewhere. Investment in infrastructure in schools, hospitals, roads and the very fast train in regional communities not only benefits these communities but also, encourages relocation of people to towns outside of the risk zone. The future proofing of the existing development in the Nepean/Hawkesbury catchment will be better served by adoption of more aggressive policies on climate change. Sure floods happen but, the additional impact of more extreme weather can be minimised by a more intelligent approach to the drivers of climate change.

The NSW State Government has recently demonstrated leadership in evidence based responses to environmental issues. This leadership needs to be accelerated and the Federal Government needs to get on board. Acceptance of a common goal and co-operation is needed to address this issue to achieve the stated goal. Short term patches achieve little and waste time, effort and tax payers money.

Decentralisation and use of renewable energy alternatives are the answer to the future flood risk of the Nepean/Hawesbury River system. Raising the dam wall is a waste as it provides little long term protection from the ravages of a energised natural weather system.

I live in the Southern Highlands of NSW, on Gundungarra Country.
The recently Environmental Impact Statement released by the NSW government is deeply flawed in numerous ways. Threatened species surveys are incomplete and fail to meet the guidelines required. Expert reports are missing. No surveys have been undertaken since the 2019-20 bushfires. There is no modelling of the economic benefits of raising the Wall, nor modelling of flood impacts.
The devastation wrought on the national natural and Aboriginal heritage can never be reversed. The proposal is tantamount to the destruction of the Buddhist statues of Bamiyan in Afganistan. Some things can never be replaced, among them many hundreds of Aboriginal sites and the exquisite beauty and biodiversity of the life-giving Komung River.
The proposal to raise the Dam Wall is a blatant disregard for the status of World Heritage Listing. The recognition of the Blue Mountains as a place on the planet of ‘outstanding universal value’ bestowed upon Australia by UNESCO is something of which we should all be proud; not something to be trashed. To even contemplate such a thing suggests the NSW government undervalues the very State they purport to represent.
No matter how high you raise the Wall, the effects of climate change are likely to be so profound that there is no guarantee that floodplain communities along the Hawkesbury and Nepean Rivers will be safe. There are alternatives but the EIS fails to assess these adequately.
These beautiful places will be lost forever. Places where I have bushwalked and marvelled at the wonder of nature. To ruin such wild and wonderful country would be a travesty that generations will not forget.

Please see attached document for my submission on behalf of Shoalhaven Bushwalkers Inc.

To whom it may concern,
Proposal to raise the Dam
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains and I oppose the proposal to raise the Dam as the main flood mitigation strategy.
The Task force options Assessment Report 2019 notes, when dismissing levees as an option, that “levees can also create a false sense of security“. I believe that raising the Dam will have the same effect.
I have seen firsthand, traditional water courses that have been dry for decades as a result of dam construction being used for development, only to be washed away when the once in a life time event arrives, with the loss of lives. This was also accompanied with mistakes in forecasting and timing of water release.
I believe that, land use planning, development controls, voluntary and compulsory buy back, improved forecasting, community awareness, improved governance of flood risk management, road flood risk planning, should all be part of a flood mitigation strategy.

To whom it may concern,
I ask the Government to halt the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall as it will destroy World Heritage Areas, National Parks, Wilderness Areas and Wild Rivers, ecosystems of national conservation significance and landscapes of great cultural significance to Aboriginal people.

The Government should achieve flood protection for existing residents downstream from future floods, by other means such as relocation of those at Rick and restricting building on flood plains, and should secure future water supplies by other means such as water recycling and desalination.

To whom it may concern,
I've been with the charity Give A Dam for awhile now and they have been campaigning against the dam wall raising for a number of years.
I've lived in the penrith area for a very long time, I also do allot of bushwalking in the mountains and penrith region, I absolutely adore nature and all the animals that come with it.
The reason for my submission is because I do not want the dam wall to be raised for a number of reasons which I will outline below.
1. The dam wall is allready old, raising the dam wall could potentially make the structure weaken which may lead to complications further down the track with maintenance.
2. The habitats for the endangered and critically endangered species such as the regent honeyeater and Sydney's last emu population will be destroyed if the dam wall gets raised.
3. The last remaining wild river called the Kowmung River which is declared a "Wild River" which is protected for it's pristine conditions under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 will be gone if the dam wall raising goes ahead.
4. There is a large group of trees in the zone to be flooded called the "Camden White Gum" which is a unique eucalyptus species for oustanding universal value under the areas world heritage listing.
5.There is a number of threatened ecological communities such as the Grassy Box Woodland.
6. In the year 2000 the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area was inscribed on UNESCO's World Heritage list in recognition for it's "Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind", raising the Warragamba Dam Wall will be a breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
7. A world heritage listed site that's also a sacred aboriginal space will be destroyed, 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 will be flooded forever.
I do not believe that raising the dam wall will stop flooding in the long term other solutions and options need to be considered.

To Whom It May Concern
I am writing with regard to the proposed raising of Warragamba dam’s walls.
My family and I moved to the Blue Mountains many years ago to enjoy this incredible world heritage area. Our decision to move here was primarily influenced by the Blue Mountain’s world heritage listing.
We founded a business around active transport and have worked within the mountains and Western Sydney communities for many years, employing locals and delivering active transport infrastructure for the NSW government, business clients and for governments around Australia.
We are also part of a vibrant and growing community that actively engages in kayaking, cycling and trail running activities and competitions throughout the region. I know many people who travel from Sydney and interstate and overseas to access the World Heritage areas. Many local businesses rely heavily on income from such visitors, attracting by the World Heritage listing and the area's intact natural beauty. While other countries embrace ecotourism and active travel NSW in particular is an international laggard in providing support for this activity. The proposal would put a heavy burden on businesses in the mountains and in Western Sydney that rely on this incredible resource and World Heritage listing to connect people from near and far to nature. Business culture in the Mountains has positioned itself around the world heritage listing and the superlative natural beauty of this area with MTNS MADE an initiative of the Blue Mountains Economic Enterprise. To threaten the integrity of this world heritage region is counterintuitive and to do so without providing a sound business case is severely remiss.
As someone with experience working to deliver NSW government contracts I also have concerns around the processes involved in the Environmental Impact Statement. It is unfathomable to find out that just 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage and only 3.5 hours spent looking for koalas and just one single day assessing the impacts to aquatic life. When evolution has taken hundreds of millions of years to produce the incredible beauty and resources we see in this area today and the NSW government employs a contractor that spends just one day on this we know we have a very profound problem.
Countless governments have had to live with the legacy of poor decision making and allowing building to occur in floodplains. The whole nation had to pay the price for Queensland’s floods in 2011 with a levy. It is fundamentally unfair to outsource bad decision making to citizens. With this proposal we have the opportunity to learn from the past and not ransom the futures of our children and taxpayers to carry unfair burdens when they are already facing threats from climate change that have been mostly neglected by Australian governments.
Climate change is bringing more severe weather and unpredictable events. Insurers are baulking at insuring homes in flood plains, not only are there insurmountable risks to property and lives but the risk of contamination downstream of waterways and land can’t be mitigated. To ignore this is to be negligent. I am also concerned about the impact on the soils in the area - a most precious resource in and would like to know what research has been done on this aspect of the proposal.
The points I have raised have not included the threat to the strength of the state’s national parks, the lack of modelling around economic benefits and the sheer stupidity of wanting to house 134 000 new residents on a flood plain.
This is a diabolical proposal with very few benefits to the Western Sydney and Blue Mountains regions that would be much better off capitalising on the opportunities protecting and growing the world heritage brand and bringing a holistic approach to housing new residents in areas that do not put them at risk.
I urge the NSW to fully reject this proposal and to take responsibility for delivering new housing responsibly in ways that don't sacrifice the birthright of all Australians, our beautiful natural environment and the animals, plants and insects that live within it. Let the rivers be free.

To whom it may concern,
as a visitor to and resident in the Burragorang Valley for over 30 years I have serious concerns over the plan to raise the Warragamba dam wall.
In our time in the valley we have witnessed fire, drought and flood and the negative impacts of feral animals, land clearing, and pumping of water via the Wingecarribee river which maintained unnatural river levels.
Duing the period when river levels were unnaturally high for extended periods, much river bank vegetation was killed and what was once a crystal clear river was invaded by Carp. Native plants were replaced by weeds.
We are concerned that the proposed retained water levels will make this degradation even worse.
We are also concerned that Platypus and Rakali burrows will be flooded and other creatures such as the critically endangered Regent Honey eater will suffer habitat loss.
Inundation is likely to damage a number of threatenened ecological communities particularly the Grassy Box Woodlands and the Camden White Gum.
Also of great concern is the loss of and/or damage to Gundungurra cultural heritage. We understand that Traditional Owners have not given free prior and informed consent for the dam proposal to proceed.
These are issues that can not be offset or remediated.
We urge you to seriously consider alternatives to protect floodplain communities downstream of the dam and save the World Heritage values of the country upstream.

To whom it may concern,
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will open western Sydney floodplains to development, swelling the populations of Penrith, Windsor, Richmond and Riverstone by 134,000 in the next coming years. Western Sydney communities are already desperately short of school places, medical services and public transport. We do not need more urban-sprawl across our agricultural floodplains.

The proposal will not reduce flood risk and I believe floodplain property developers are set to benefit from the raising of Warragamba dam wall. Developers believe if the Warragamba Dam wall is raised, flood waters would be held behind a raised dam wall and therefore not flood their (currently) flood-prone land that they wish to develop.
The State Emergency Services (SES) have warned that new developments around Penrith and the Hawkesbury should not go ahead as it will risk the lives of thousands of people, regardless of the dam wall raising. Scientific investigations have also revealed that raising Warragamba Dam wall would have little impact on floods, with major flooding still occurring downstream if the raised dam due to the creeks and rivers that flow into the Hawkesbury-Nepean River downstream of Warragamba Dam wall.
I call on you, as my local member of Parliament, not to support the raising of Warragamba Dam wall. Raising the dam wall will put thousands more lives at risk on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain and cause massive over-development in western Sydney that is not supported by the local community.
I am concerned that the dam will have many adverse impacts including:
• The likelihood of significant damage to the cultural heritage of the Gundungurra First Nation;
• the impact on the biodiversity of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area;
• Flooding of the Kowmung River valley
• watering down of environmental protections to enable the project to proceed.
The CEO of the Insurance Council of Australia, Andrew Hall, has said the money planned for raising the wall would be better used buying back land (that never should have been developed in the first place) on the flood plain around Penrith.

To whom it may concern,
I would like to express my opposition to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. I have a number of reasons for my opposition:
- The Blue Mountains World Heritage Area is of special importance, after all it is a World Heritage Area. Any impacts on this area from inundation would be of significance.
- There is no integrity in the environmental assessment as Water NSW has influenced the wording within the EIS. It is no longer an independent report with this interference and watering down of environmental impacts.
- Impacts to a number of threatened species is unknown - many areas have not been adequately surveyed. It is unknown whether there are significant populations of threatened species that should be preserved. How can you properly assess an impact whilst not knowing how much is there (i.e. just assuming present).
- Any significant populations that have been surveyed and known to occur (e.g. Regent Honeyeater, Camden White Gum, a number of TEC's) need to be preserved (otherwise what is the point in calling it a threatened entity if even a significant population doesn't stop the proposal). This isn't just one threatened plant, animal or TEC - a number of threatened entities are present, with more possible (assumed present but not surveyed properly).
- A significant number of cultural heritage sites are proposed for inundation. The proposal does not have the support of hte Gundungurra Traditional Owners.
- There are alternatives! The principles of avoid, minimise and/or mitigate could be easily achieved by not going ahead with the proposal and looking at the alternatives. These principles have not been explored comprehensively in the EIS.

I absolutely oppose raising the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I vehemently oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. And am ashamed that the paltry and sloppy accessment by the EIS of the cultural and environmental impacts, would be used to claim my tax dollars to execute this project.
It seems incomprehensible that when there are more cost effective alternative means of flood mitigation, that the government would choose to push through a project that not only neglects to include the considerations of the Gundungurra Traditonal Owners, but also the environmental impacts for our more than human kin.
The raising of the Warragamba Dam wall will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream and a combined approach of multiple alternative options has been recommended as the most cost effective and best option.
We know that multi-pronged approaches that are inclusive of both natural and indgenous considerations are longer lasting and ultimately more sustainable, than the hitherto preferred silver bullet methods. Silver bullets don't exisit. Life is infinately more complex than current mainstream political and business agendas care to recognise which is why we are in the global social, economic and environmental miasmas of today's world.
We need solutions that put both land and indigenous peoples at the forefront of considerations and the continued failure of our leaders and representatives in government to do so, is not only a mark of extreme ignorance, but shows a fundamental lack of the moral fiber required to pull humanity out of the nosedive it is in.
I sincerely hope that you step up and be the change that we desperately need to see in the world. Please begin here. Please begin now.

To whom it may concern,
I live in the Blue Mountains and am a keen bushwalker and bird watcher. I feel very privileged to live in a World Heritage Area and believe that we should all act to protect the unique flora and fauna that is in the National Park.
I am opposed to the raising of the dam wall because of its environemental impacts on the Blue Mountains - it will inundate habitat for the endangered Regent Honeyeater as well as other birds including the emus that live in the Burragorang. It will inundate over 1541 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment has been woefully inadequate. Gundungurra Traditional Owners are opposed to the raising of the wall.
Most of all I am opposed because it will not solve the problem of flooding. Alternative options to raising the wall were not comprehensively addressed in the EIS. A combined approach of multiple options has been recommended as the most cost-effective means of flood risk mitigation.
Please reconsider the plan and come up with other options than raising the dam wall.

We need to start valuing the land we are on. It is much more important than we are currently giving it.

To whom it may concern,
Regarding Warragamba Dam
The hydrology of the catchment and the structure of the dam should be studied in detail to ascertain the best way of managing this critical infrastructure for the future water security of Sydney. A break in the dam wall could leave Sydney without drinking water! We face a critical situation and need to act now.

Dear NSW Government,

I'm a Sydney resident who often visits the Blue Mountains for bushwalking and other recreation. I am strongly opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

Why do I think it is not a good idea?
- the plan would not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley as on average 45% of floodwaters come from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba catchment. In fact no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the plan are outlined in the EIS. There are alternative options for flood mitigation which should be more thoroughly explored than they have been.
- the losses from going ahead with this ineffectual plan are huge ie: the loss of a huge swathe of our precious National Parks, including 1300 hectares within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, the pristine Kowmung River, already endangered plant, animal and bird species and the loss of over 1500 identified aboriginal cultural heritage sites.
The EIS has been severely criticized by NPWS for not considering the impact on the species and ecological communities following last year fires. Heritage NSW and the Commonwelath Environment Department have also criticised the EIS, the latter department saying that the whole assessment was of such a poor standard that it should be redone.

It is not too late to step back and generate a raft of better solutions for flood mitigation. We need our National Parks more than ever as development encroaches more and more on what natural environment we have left.

Thank you for considering my submission.

I oppose the raising of Warragamba Dam wall application.
Here are the reasons ,
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall by 14m will result in periodic flooding of 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. In 2000, UNESCO listed the Greater Blue Mountains Area as a World Heritage Area because of its biological diversity. Both the Commonwealth Government of Australia and the NSW Government committed to protect the area for future generations. This includes protecting the area from construction of reservoirs that will flood important parts of the World Heritage Area. Critically endangered plant and animal species as well as critically endangered ecological communities will be destroyed. More than 1,500 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and rock art will be destroyed by this flooding.
Inadequate Wild life investigations
Only 3.5 hours was spent looking for koalas that are known to inhabit the Greater Blue Mountains Area. This is insufficient time to assess a threatened species. The bushfires of 2019/2020 affected 81% of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, yet no post-bushfire field surveys of threatened species have been undertaken. It is unacceptable to not know how many koalas will be impacted by the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.
Fewer than 400 critically endangered Regent honeyeaters are left in the wild. Flooding will destroy their breeding and feeding habitat along with any nestlings. They can’t move elsewhere as they have specific breeding requirements. Their population will be severely impacted.
Just 1 day was spent assessing the impacts to aquatic life. This is inadequate. This proposal will disrupt the water flow, endangering the threatened platypus population. As no surveys were carried out, the size of the platypus population that would be adversely affected is unknown.
Loss of Native Landscapes
Raising the dam wall will inundate over 65 Km of wilderness rivers and 5,700 hectares of National Parks. National Parks were created for conserving nature, including habitat, biodiversity, landforms of significance and landscapes, and places and objects of significance to Aboriginal people. This project will destroy all of these sites in the impact zone.
Only 27% of the impact zone was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage, and as a result, a large amount of indigenous cultural sites are not listed. These will be lost forever when flooding occurs. Tributaries identified as having indigenous archaeological potential were only partially surveyed. Flooding upstream from this project will destroy rock art such as hand paintings. There are also scar trees and grinding grooves in the impact zone. All these indigenous archaeological and cultural sites need to be preserved for future generations. These significant sites and objects are part of their Dreamtime stories which are passed down from generation to generation. It is inexcusable to destroy the cultural heritage of our indigenous people.
Flooding will destroy the vulnerable Camden White Gum and the endangered Kowmung Hakea which inhabit this wilderness area. They should be protected, not destroyed. Critically endangered ecological communities within the upstream impact zone that will be adversely affected include Forest Red Gum - Yellow Box woodland, Mountain Blue Gum - Thin-leaved Stringybark open forest and Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Forest Red Gum. Flooding will bring these ecological communities closer to extinction.
This application should be refused due to its adverse effects on endangered species, ecological communities, indigenous cultural heritage and pristine wild rivers and National Parks.

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly oppossed to the governments proposal to raise the warragamba dam wall.
I have bushwalked through the proposed lake extension area many times , so am familiar with the world hertiage that will be serverly impacted by the proposal.
The impact on treated species should be sufficient reason to not proceed with the proposal. I am also very unimpressed by the shabby EIS that is in place to support the proposal.
The existence of aboriginal cultural heritage within the proposed lake extension is also significant.
I believe the governmentment should listen to the many flooding experts that find that the dam wall raising is not a good expenditure of taxpayers funds on flood mititigation & safety measures and there are others measures that will provide increased flood safety without the huge pricetag of this project.
The Hawesbury Nepean floodplain has always been a floodplain & will always be a floodplain regardless of the dam wall raising. There should be no further residential deveopment in the flood zone , & those properties that already existing in the flood zone should be voluntarily acquired by the government.
Please spend the taxpayers funds on the other measures recommended by experts to achieve increased flood safety & leave the world heritage area with its threatened species & aboriginal cultural hertitage as it is.