Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
please stop this ridiculous plan to raise the warragamba wall , this will cause extensive damage to our world heritage listed blue mountains, with no thought to our future and the changes to our land country that hold significant cultural and spiritual connections to the gundangurra people. As a proud Wiradjuri woman I'm disgusted that this proposed plan to raise the wall has not consulted with our First Nations people's

To whom it may concern,
I am a Blue Mountains resident and have lived, raised a family and bushwalked in this area for 33 years.
The National Park here is a major tourism drawcard and vital for economic activity in the Blue Mountains. It's wild beauty is internationally renowned.
I am against the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons.
*There would be a loss of National Park area (4700 ha)
*World heritage would be submerged (1000 ha)
*Wilderness would be destroyed (1800 ha)
* Higher water levels from floods would submerge additional vegetation. This would lead to a dead zone of areas of sedimentation covered in exotic weeds and drowned trees.
*These higher water levels will denude wild rivers like the Kowmung, leaving them scarred forever.
*Rare and endangered plant communities like the nationally threatened Camden white gum forest will be lost.
* Wildlife habitat was recently ravaged by fire and this has already affected the habitat of the regent honeyeater. The threat to this bird species, the rarest in NSW, will only exacerbate, potentially leading to future extinction.
*The higher water levels will further degrade world famous scenery in the southern blue mountains area.
*There would be desecration of irreplaceable indigenous heritage belonging to the Gundungurran nation and their creation story. This loss of cultural history also extends to early settler European heritage.
*Incursion would occur into National park, with internationally famous bushwalking areas and historic campsites drowned.
*The $700 million budget could be spent on appropriate flood mitigation measures.
*Flooding results from many tributaries feeding into the Nepean Hawkesbury catchment not just the Warragamba river. Thus, the raising of the dam wall is unlikely to have the desired effect
*The capacity of the Warragamba dam wall to be structurally sound enough for it to be raised is in doubt. This is an old dam built for water storage purposes using old engineering and technology. It was never designed for flood mitigation.
*A catastrophic failure in this structure could result in thousands of deaths and major loss of of property and farmland. Insurance companies are already calling this proposal out.
I urge the government not to proceed with the plan to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall.
Australia's international reputation as a country which protects its unique environment must be maintained.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the raising of the dam wall for the following reasons
1 .World heritage sites will be destroyed including the inundation and destruction of the remaining Gundungurra caves with cave paintings and loss of artefacts.
2. Traditional owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the dam raising project.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The EIS did not adequately assess the impacts of the project on biodiversity. Many areas to be impacted by rising flood waters were not surveyed at all including the Kowmung River, Cedar Creek, Lacys Creek, Green Wattle Creek, Werriberri Creek, Brimstone Creek and Ripple Creek. The area to be impacted by raising the dam wall includes several matters considered of National Environmental Significance including;
a. 1 World Heritage property
b. 1 National Heritage property
c. 12 threatened ecological communities
d. 78 threatened species of flora and fauna
e. 16 species of migratory fauna

To whom it may concern,
I have lived in the Blue Mountains my entire life and spent many hours walking in our beautiful World Heritage listed part of the world.
I have the below concerns about the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
I am saddened to hear that the habitat for the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater, Koala colonies and Emu's would be drowned by a raised dam wall. Only 3.5 hours was spent searching fro Koalas during the assessment.
It is alarming to hear that the NSW Government intends to house 134,000 new residents on the Hawkesbury-Nepean floodplain over the next 30 years, facilitated in part by the dam raising.
I am opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam for the reasons I have mentioned above.

I object to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. The environmental damage that will occur will far outweigh the benefits gained.

I have walked in the Blue Mountains at various times and will walk there in future. It is wonderful to have such a magnificent area so close to Sydney.

I am particularly concerned about the threat to the already Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater. There are only 350 birds remaining in the wild. They are a beautiful bird, as well as being unique. I have seen one Regent Honeyeater at the South Coast of NSW a couple of years ago.

The Regent Honeyeater has already lost up to 50% of its habitat in the 2019/20 bushfires (BirdLife Australia). The area proposed for the Project includes places that they nest. Building a higher Dam wall will push Regent Honeyeaters closer to extinction.

Biodiversity offsets would not add protection to the Regent Honeyeater, so they could not be genuine offsets.

Reported in the Guardian (12 September 2021), “Downstream, three other woodland and forest communities – known as threatened ecological communities – could be driven to extinction due to hydrological changes” if this Project goes ahead. In addition, Koalas and Greater Gliders will also be threatened, as well as endangered plants.

I think that it is unreasonable to even consider flooding 6 000 hectares on land in the National Park, which has World Heritage listing.

Reduction of trees and other plants caused by inundation will contributes to Climate Change. Climate Change is resulting in unprecedented, catastrophic weather events such as flooding and fires. We should be doing everything possible to reduce Climate Change, not increase it.

New buildings should not be constructed in the flood plain – that defies common-sense. It is so unfair to individuals who put their savings into buying homes or businesses and risk inundation in the future. Money saved from not raising the Dam wall should be spent on buying back homes, businesses and land from the flood plain.

The source of flooding does not necessarily come from the Warragamba Dam area (Environmental Impact Statement EIS Executive Summary), so despite the massive amount of environmental damage caused and the great expense to raise the wall, it will not totally fix the problem. The EIS considered lowering the Warragamba Dam full supply level by five metres, and this is a better idea to prevent flooding. Sydney’s water supply can be (and already is) topped up from other sources.

Is the real motivation for raising the Dam wall to provide more water storage, so it will be available because other connected parties plan to open up more floodplain land for development (i.e. short term profit)? It is more important to protect our precious flora and fauna from destruction for the long term.

The Environmental Impact Statement is flawed. According to the Sydney Morning Herald (8 November 2021), Ecologist Rachel Musgrave tried to have her name removed from the Report due to changes made to her findings and later withdrew from the process. Dr Crate advised that parts of his Report were omitted and words were changed to dilute his message.

The cultural importance of the affected area to the local Gandangarra Indigenous people is not being valued. This is not uncommon regarding land use but that does not make it right. They chose not to participate in the consultation as they did not trust the process.

The fact that the Insurance Council of Australia, Wollondilly and the Blue Mountains City Councils object to this Project should indicate that it is not a sound Project.

It appears that WaterNSW wants the Project to go ahead regardless of valid objections from multiple reputable sources.

The raising of the height of the Warragamba Dam wall should not go ahead!

I write to oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall on the following grounds:

1. I do not believe it is necessary for Sydney's ongoing water security. My view is that this is better served by more judicious use of existing supply (eg by discouraging overuse in domestic settings by raising water usage charges, having mandatory water tanks installed, increasingly use of native vegetation and low water use plants in gardens, reducing overbuilding and excess concrete usage).
2. It is clear to me that the dam wall raising is primarily intended to mitigate flood risk in the Hawkesbury flood plain, to facilitate further development of that region. It is however unclear how this could work, noting that much of the flooding in the Hawkesbury flood plain comes from catchments downstream of the existing dam. Recent NSW government leaks have confirmed that raising the dam wall will not significantly reduce flood risk. Regardless, this area of flood plain is already overdeveloped and will be vital for ongoing food production for the Sydney region.
3. Expanding the dam itself will have devastating effects on the forests of the Blue Mountains National Park. The area to be flooded and/or affected by dieback is included in a World Heritage area. Endangered species are at risk. Destroying such a large part of this area is contrary to Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention. It is criminal that this destruction should even be considered.
4. Tourism in the Blue Mountains is dependent on the natural beauty of the area and may well be adversely affected when views from the Three Sisters are now of the upper reaches of the new dam, rather than the current relatively undeveloped bushland.
5. It would appear to me that the entire process, including that of the Environmental Impact Statement, lacks integrity.

As a medical doctor working in the frontline of the current Covid-19 pandemic, I am acutely aware that people in the Sydney region need access to richly diverse, relatively accessible and large areas of wilderness, where they can reflect and take stock. We are immensely privileged to have easy access to such a region in the Blue Mountains National Park. Destroying this for future generations would, in my view, be both inexplicable and a complete tragedy.

I look forward to hearing that this disgraceful proposal has been reconsidered and found to be inappropriate.

This is just a test

Please find attached my submission: Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI-8441

WARRAGAMBA DAM WALL RAISING PROPOSAL

Protect Our Water Catchment, (POWC) inc. are a group of concerned citizens whose aim is to conserve the natural values of the Greater Sydney water catchment. We watch over development proposals, subscribe to expert evidence and contribute to the review process.

POWC object to the NSW government proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall.

Submissions to the 2019 Enquiry to Raise the Warragamba Dam Wall contended that flooding the upstream Burragorang valley will not reduce risks to life, property and community assets downstream. The rainfall event of March 2021 demonstrated that raising the wall would not have reduced the downstream damage done by the flood.

Raising the wall will amplify flood damage by increasing the footprint of inundation behind the dam. Areas of pristine natural value will be drowned for months while the dam drains. After the floodwater subsides the landscape will be strangely altered, plants that have not died will struggle to cope with an altered soil, animals that have not drowned will return to a tangle of dead muddy debris. Over time a noticeable line around the catchment will form, like a ring in a bathtub, below which the exposed rock will dominate as soil is stripped away by successive flood events. Added soil and carbon will be mixed into the drinking water of Sydney creating further cost and health risk with added need for disinfection of the water supply.

Impounded water creates a permanent impact on the catchment. Gone will be the breeding areas for a suite of rare and endangered birds, including the critically endangered Regent honeyeater. Gone will be remnant habitat for a wide range of mammals and reptiles now thriving in close proximity to Sydney. Also gone will be the land and the sites that form a living connection to aboriginal culture.

POWC draws attention to the many expert objections raised against the scheme. Some voices directly employed by WaterNSW in environmental assessment and others in academic posts who have developed specialised knowledge in ecology, hydrology and engineering of water infrastructure. We note also the assessment of the Insurance Council does not support the scheme.

We note the failure of the EIS process to fairly represent the findings of researchers attempting to work within the highly flawed offset methodology established by the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment. Once again there is a demonstrated failure of DPIE to treat environmental concerns with seriousness, due in part to politicians seizing the moment and shifting the goal posts when assessments are not favorable to development.

POWC supports the Traditional Owners of the Gundungurra who have not given consent for the Dam proposal to proceed.

Perhaps most concerning is the forgotten aim to conserve natural areas. The upstream flooding will affect land protected in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The Australian government is committed to increasing natural areas under protection to 30% by 2030. NSW currently has 10% of natural areas under protection. Targets are meaningless unless they are followed by action.

There is broad acceptance that the natural environment needs protection. There is universal acceptance that water catchments are best left in their natural state. This scheme is an example of needless development in a protected area of great natural significance.

POWC urge a swift and unambiguous closing of this ill-conceived development proposal.

i just wanted to voice my support for the raising of the Warragamba dam wall. This project is vital for the safety of the communities living along the Hawkesbury/Nepean regions. I like every other member of these communities support this project. I and many others feel that any councillors who oppose this project are placing peoples lives in danger. I will continue to support this project and all government parties who support this project, such as Stuart Ayers and Mark Davies.

Please see attachment

I do not want my street address, email address, phone numer and mobile number published or listed on the Department's website.

My submission is attached below.

Submission attached.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I provide an submission on the Warragamba Dam flood mitigation proposal that is based on over thirty years experience in land management issues regarding the area upstream of the dam wall. I have read the EIS report and previous reports going back to the five metre dam wall raising undertaken by the then Environment Minister Tim Moore in 1986.

I am happy to have the attached submission published on your website.

Yours faithfully,

Keith Muir O.A.M.

Wollondilly Shire Council unanimously Resolved its strong opposition to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall, at an extraordinary meeting on Friday, 8 October 2021, condemning the inadequacies of the recently released Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Councils view is that; not only does the EIS fail to address many of the conditions imposed by the SEARs, but completely fails to demonstrate the viability of the Project. In summary;
Council is concerned with the demonstrated value of the project
• The EIS articulates the project has a ‘cost benefit ratio’ of 1.05, barely breaking even.
• Yet this includes $700m of unspecified ‘works already required’, discounting the cost of the project to achieve a result better than 1, at the same time failing to include adequate allowances for heritage impacts including cultural value impacts, ecology impacts and offsets, traffic impacts (road safety, condition and capacity), noise, air quality and socioeconomic impacts on the village of Warragamba.
• As an alternative proposal; the citing of ‘social impact’ of voluntary purchasing (VP) flood affected properties has been used to discount VP as an option. Yet VP is an adopted state wide practice under the floodplain management program and other state lead initiatives such as the asbestos buy back scheme. Additionally, the EIS does not acknowledge the social impact of properties that will continued to be being flooded, or flooded for longer if the project is to proceed.
• Clarity needs to be given, on the long term benefits of the project given potential for development and densification of the Hawkesbury Nepean Valley.
Council is concerned with the level of consultation carried out to inform the EIS
• There has been inadequate, meaningful consultation regarding upstream and adjacent community impacts, local and state government lead initiatives (such as Silverdale Rd upgrades), therefore there must be more extensive consultation with commitment to act on findings.
• Anecdotally, residents of the Hawkesbury Nepean feel that this is a ‘silver bullet’ to solving the flood issue in the valley, leading to false expectations and complacency.
Council is concerned with air quality for the village of Warragamba during the 5year construction period
• A construction air quality management plan, to include a dust mitigation plan for all stages of the works, is required, in order to mitigate exceedences in dust and particulate matter criteria at sensitive receptors. 24 hour average particulate matter are likely to be in exceedence at receptor R49.
Council is concerned with how ecological impacts have been assessed
• The determination of the level used for the Project Upstream Impact Area (PUIA) is confusing and not appropriate. It would appear the level chosen to determine the PUIA is ~1.5m lower than the height of the proposed spillway, ~3m below the nominal 14m high wall extension and ~8m below the actual 19m extension being proposed. Nil impact above the nominated PUIA level is inappropriate and shows the ‘typical flood’ used to determine the PUIA is significantly lower than the design flood event used for the project.
• Clarity is required on the applicability of the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act’s Biodiversity Offset Scheme, and the appropriateness for the State Government to suggest anything else could be used.
• The potential significant impact proposed to a large number of threatened species and ecological communities, including those already listed as Critically Endangered under State or Commonwealth legislation, must be critically considered. This does not align with a key principle of the project to achieve a ‘no-net-loss’ of biodiversity.
• Clarity is required on the version of the Koala SEPP that is applicable to the EIS and update the EIS accordingly.
• Council have found inconsistencies with aspects of the biodiversity related Standard Secretary Environment Assessment Requirements. It is asked that a specific response is provided which talks to the Desired Outcomes for the Major Impact Priority Theme within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Strategic Plan.
• The stated number of credits to be retired through offsetting as a result of the development will likely result in significant expense for the applicant and offsetting may not be able to be achieved based on requirements of the FBA and rules and principles of the NSW Offset Policy.
• The need for more extensive surveys for threatened flora species is viewed as being of particular importance to enable an accurate assessment of biodiversity values and actual threatened species directly impacted by the development as well as informing offsetting.
• The project does not seem to have adequately considered the avoidance of impacts to biodiversity and instead is focused on offsetting.
• Review of the applicable biodiversity legislation, given the exhibition of the EIS in October 2021. Consideration of Serious and Irreversible Impacts may be required.
Council is extremely concerned with how heritage impacts, including cultural impact, have been addressed.
Further to the non-aboriginal heritage assessment;
• The heritage assessment does not consider all heritage places and items in study area.
• The EIS only gives a generalised assessment of impacts for the majority of heritage places.
• The heritage assessment does not identify and assess impacts on social heritage values.
• Options analysis for the project does not demonstrate a clear consideration of heritage impacts of alternatives to justify the selected approach.
• The heritage assessment does not include mitigation measures for impacts on downstream heritage sites.
Further to the aboriginal heritage and cultural value assessment;
• the options analysis does not appear to account for Aboriginal cultural heritage values;
• the survey method is inadequate;
• predictive modelling is flawed due to its limited focus on soil and slope landscape characteristics, and its reliance on an inadequate survey methodology;
• National Heritage values have not been assessed;
• cumulative impact assessment is inadequate—the cumulative impact assessment uses historical impacts as a mitigating measure for current additional impacts, does not account for historical loss, and does not account for the views of RAPs / Traditional Owners; and recommendations do not adequately address the impacts, and do not account for Aboriginal cultural values, but are focused only on technical archaeological values.
• As detailed in ecological impacts, the PUIA is determined from a low ‘typical flood event’, much lower than the design event for the wall.
Council is very concerned with the noise impacts to the residents of Warragamba for the 5year construction period, and how this will be mitigated
• In Order to meet the requirements of the SEARs, assessment should be carried out to demonstrate how blast impacts can be mitigated at receivers to ensure that they meet with current guidelines
• Details should be provided on how the recommendations provided in the Noise and Vibration Assessment will achieve compliance at the nearest sensitive receivers, particularly during evening and night time periods.
• Given the length of time that sensitive receivers are likely to be impacted by noise and vibration from the construction works, (up to 5 years), the assessment should also consider mitigation measures, from noise and vibration generating activities.
Council is very concerned for the socioeconomic impacts to Warragamba and how this will be addressed
Warragamba is heavily reliant on tourism trade and history has showed that extended dam works has a disastrous impact on the local shops. This has not been addressed in the EIS and ‘local shop engagement’ does not reflect the concerns raised direct to Council.
Noise impacts, air quality impacts and local traffic impacts will also have a significant detrimental impact to the village and have not been satisfactorily covered in the EIS.
The offer to ‘Provide support to Wollondilly Council to assist with project related administration and enquiries’ is unknown to Council and expectation is not clear, what level of service or if this has been costed.
Council is very concerned with the impacts to the Wollondilly road network and the lack of consideration in the EIS
Wollondilly has an aging road network with significant road safety, road condition and road capacity issues. Any development would be required to develop traffic impact assessments and transport management plan that must include;
• Approval from the relevant Roads Authorities on the chosen haul routes.
• Clear articulation of all transport routes proposed including the ‘north’ and ‘south’ route.
• Pre and post dilapidation surveys of all roads, bridges and structures on the routes.
• Road safety audits by qualified persons, informing road upgrades to be completed prior to works commencing on the dam
• Capacity (traffic volume, heavy vehicles, structural) assessment for all intersections, roads, bridges and structures and proposed mitigation measures.
• Management measures for sensitive land uses, such as schools, adjacent to proposed routes.
• Updated traffic counts and modelling to accurately reflect the construction period.
• Management plan for monitoring and remediating as required throughout the construction period.
• Management plan for inspection and remediation of Sheeys Creek Firetrail following any flood event (post-construction) given its criticality in accessing the Burragorang Valley, particularly in times of bushfire.
The application has not adequately answered the SEARS & failed to demonstrated that the potential impacts of the proposal are satisfactorily addressed or mitigated, nor demonstrated the benefit of the project is sufficient to justify the cost and impacts.

It seems axiomatic that the main purpose for buidling a dam is in most cases to hold the water supply for a town or city. A second and important role is to hold water to supply irrigation for horticultural and agricultural purposes, especially when the activties are intensive and rely on regular and frequent quantities of water. A third role is to enable hydro-electricity to be generated, that being mainly applicable when precipitiation is relatively frequent, reliable and abundant. A fourth and generally inferior reason for dam construction or enlargement is flood control. The fourth role is the one claimed as necessary or at least expedient for the raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam.

Making possible a large increase in the volume, and therefore the height, of the water behind the dam would first of all drown a much larger part of rhe catcment area thsan at present, at least for extended periods of time. The negative impact on both natural and cultural features is obvious, but as always there is the question of balance between the benefits of having the dam and the inevitable damage done to the environment. Providing a water supply for a large city is a good reason for having a dam. Regarding the downstream environment, the purpose of flood control is directly to change the river regime and alter the normal work that a river does in shaping the landscape, as well as providing deposits that can be used for agricultural and human purposes. If, as seems to be the case, the main reason for raising the dam wall is to allow for much more extensive erection of houses and other buildings in the river valleys below the dam, there are surely other measures that can be taken, including the requirement for houses to be only on higher ground, and perhaps it would not be beyond the ingenuity of experts to have housing that is on stilts or in other ways raised above likely flood levels. A better solution might be to avoid low-lying ground altogether, which can then be used fo other purposes.

In the days when I knew a lot more about fluvial geomorphology, climatology and meteorology than I do now in retirement, the balance between utility and environmental preservation was regularly in my mind. In the present case it seems to me that the case for a change in the height of the wall of the dam is weak.

Please refer to comments in the attached submission.

I would like this project to discontinue. Destroying all our heritage and family history. This is a shared history and connection for everyone that is being destroyed. Notes have been shared with Murawin consultants. 10 000 characters is not enough to describe the loss of Culture to Community.