Warragamba Dam Raising

To whom it may concern,
Am deeply concerned about & consequently opposed to the raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall.
Everything about this project is abhorrent. It is horrifying to realise the destruction to World Heritage Areas & our precious wild river areas that would result.
Destruction & changes to these areas are irreversible, gone forever. I do not believe full & proper assessment through an EIS has been conducted.
I also do not believe raising the height of the Warragamba Dam wall will protect the Hawkesbury Nepean Flood Plains. Other measures need & could be put in place & would probably still have to be effected to protect The Floodplains.
The Traditional Owners, The Gundungurra Peoples have not given consent, also the destruction & irreversible damage that would result is unthinkable.
Please accept my opposition to such an unacceptable proposal.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed “Raising the Dam”.

I grew up in the Hawkesbury (Wilberforce) and lived there until my mid 30’s (1956 to 1990) since then I’ve lived in the Blue Mountains for most of the intervening years. I can remember the big floods of the 1961, 1964 and 1967, as well as the repeated floods of the early 70’s. As a kid I found these events quite exciting as we couldn’t go to school. We lived on a big hill in Wilberforce and the floods couldn’t reach us, however we could see, past the back fence, the vast expanse of the inland sea, that merged the Hawkesbury with Bushells Lagoon, and the thousands of inundated acres of market gardens growing cabbages, maize, potatoes, orange orchards and dairy farms.

Floods are a part of life in the Nepean/Hawkesbury floodplain. It is true that dams can help mitigate the effects of downstream flooding, however only for smaller rain events and only if the storage capacity is kept low. Warragamba is purpose built for Sydney’s water supply thus will stay reasonably full. Furthermore, during a flood event, a dam’s impact will increase the flooding of upstream areas. And this is the point of my objection. The upper Kowmung River is located in the Blue Mountains World Heritage area and would be catastrophically affected by flooding caused by this proposal. Many aboriginal cultural heritage sites would be severely affected or destroyed, as would unique habitats and rare species.

In the current proposal, the storage level will be kept well below capacity in order to have an “air gap” with the capacity to absorb an excess of floodwater and then to release this more slowly over possibly several weeks. This would have the effect of flooding upstream areas for several weeks. These inundated areas would suffer the loss of all vegetation, native animals and habitats. The subsiding floodwaters would leave vast scars of denuded river valleys upstream of the lower water level. In other words, visitors to Echo Point, Katoomba, gazing south to the vast southern Blue Mountains, would be able to see the brown scar (protruding to the left of Mt Solitary) upstream of the Kowmung River (unless it were coincidently in a big flood at the time).

I also strongly oppose any notion of opening up areas for residential housing development along the floodplain of the Nepean/Hawkesbury Rivers. Housing demand in the greater Sydney area is steadily increasing however building in a floodplain is a recipe for a catastrophic disaster. The proposed development of raising Warragamba dam wall will have little or no effect on small/medium floods, and could even exacerbate a mega-flood on the higher end of flood possibility.

For the above mentioned reasons, this project would cause world heritage destruction, habitat loss, cultural heritage destruction, visual and recreational diminishment and, potentially exacerbate a catastrophic natural disaster. I strongly oppose this project.

To whom it may concern,
If the wall is raised, 4,700 hectares of World Heritage national park, 1,800 hectares of Wilderness Areas and 65km of wilderness rivers will be forever scarred from sedimentation, erosion and the invasion of exotic plants, including:
• Kowmung River – a protected ‘Wild River’
• Eucalyptus species of Outstanding Universal Value under World Heritage listing
• Threatened Ecological Communities
• Habitat for Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population
This is a flawed plan from beginning to end and an environmental disaster.

To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to express my objection to the raising of Warragamba Dam. This project must not go ahead!
Should it go ahead as proposed, it will be a blatant demonstration of this governments disdain for Aboriginal cultural heritage, biodiversity and the world heritage and wilderness values of the southern Blue Mountains.
The destruction of the lower Kowmung River, the Blue Mountains last completely undeveloped river, would represent an unprecedented act of environmental destruction by a NSW state government.
The scar left by temporary inundation would be visible and would significantly mar the amenity of some of the most iconic lookouts in the country, such as that from Echo Point.

Raising the dam will also be an act of irreconcilabliation with the Gundungurra people, whose traditional lands will be further degraded. The current state government can and should do better than this in the name of reconciliation.
Please pursue one of the other options for flood mitigation in western Sydney.

At great expense I have chosen to live in the World Heritage listed Blue Mouuntains with limited human habitation, existing mainly along the highway. Pro right wing development agendas are definitely out of place here. There are well known reasons for this but the repercussions of ignoring them risks losing World Heritage status as well as degrading the pristine wilderness that we have here. Housing development on the flood plains below the dam and flooding above would guarantee the degradation that will surely follow. This must not be allowed to happen.
8/12
To whom it may concern,
As a resident of the Blue Mountains, living just off the Pacific Highway with minimal impact on ther Blue Mountains environment, as do most of the residents here, I oppose the raising of the Warragaba Dam wall for the reasons which follows
Raising the dam wall has the potential to inundate more than 6000 hectares of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. Inundating such a large area is tantamount to clearing that area of precious habitat for our wildlife and flora that are held so important to all who live here and treasured by others living elsewhere. Much of this land is irreplaceable and priceless. The World Heritage listing might also be in danger of being delisted.

WaterNSW has conceded damage to this pristine area will occur and monetary offsets of up to $2 billion will be likely necessary. The WaterNSW project documents reveals that the wall raising will not materially add to flood warning times for many downstream communities. There appears to be minimal benefit considering the project's estimated $1.6 billion construction cost.
It must be recognised and appreciated that unlimited increases in human populations in the Blue Mountains will ultimately destroy its character and value as wilderness. It seems obvious that housing development is being planned downstream of the dam. That intention, if allowed to succeed, opens the door to further development elsewhere in the Blue mountains. It must not be diminished and degraded little by little over time.
I am deeply concerned regarding the impact the wall-raising would have on the visitor economy. The Blue Mountains economy largely depends on these visitors.

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

The short-sightedness of this proposal is undermining the status of the Blue Mountains world heritage area and is an embarrassment to our state government and Australia.

No post-bushfire field surveys have been conducted to assess threatened species; at least 1500 Indigenous cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the raised dam wall as well as habit compromised for endangered Regent Honeyeater, Koala colonies and Sydney's last Emu population.
No modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits has been outlined in the assessment and SMEC Engineering who undertook the environmental and cultural assessment has an extremely poor record or working with Indigenous people and been banned from working on projects in India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
Damage to natural and cultural values caused by the project would be a clear breach of Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to the plan to raise the dam wall.There are other less destructive alternatives to deal with flood situations. it is evident thar there has not been sufficient research into the damage that will be done to our unique world heritage area, indigenous sites and native wildlife. W histle blowers have made it clear that the eis has been les than honest and appears to pander mainly to developers who care only for monetary gains.3.5 hours looking for koalas? A single day spent looking at impact on aquatic species such as platypus, which are already threatened? Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal cultural heritage with just one day spent in the field. This plan threatens our World Heritage status and shows no value of our unique natural area,

> I am AGAINST the raising of Warragamba Dam wall.
>
> If this wall is raised the flood waters upstream, even if periodical, will damage flora, eg the Camden White Gum tree etc, fauna eg the threatened bird species of Regent Honeyeaters etc, European settler sites and over 1000 cultural heritage Aboriginal sites. There have always been prohibited exclusion zones around the Warragamba Dam foreshore to protect the water quality. The residual risk from the rising and receding flooding will be damage to water quality, erosion and environment damage to the declared wild river Kowmung and other rivers. The Burragorang Valley, which is part of the Blue Mountains National Park, was inscribed on the UNESCO world heritage list in 2000.
>
> My ancestors settled in Burragorang Valley in 1832 and the family were forced to leave for the flooding of the valley to become Warragamba Dam. Burragorang Valley consisted of farming properties, homesteads, churches, cemeteries, schools, public halls, Post Offices, 18 holiday guest houses etc. The European and Aboriginal sites upstream of Warragamba Dam wall, that will be flooded, are just as important as the sites downstream of the wall. The offsets proportionate to these impacts do not compensate for the damage. The white and Gundungurra people had a very good relationship. In 1870, my great great uncle Michael Carlon, was rescued by Aboriginals, George and Solomon Riley, from drowning in the Wollondilly River in their canoe. The Aboriginal and white people that lived upstream of the Dam wall have already sacrificed everything. My great grandparents property and the Upper Burragorang Post Office, which my family owned, is just above the water level and the sites have recognisable features.
>
> There are currently 130,000 residents and workers on the Hawkesbury/ Nepean flood plain. These developments should never have been approved or should have been relocated before 1960, when the dam construction was finished. Raising Warragamba Dam wall will not stop flooding, as there are other rivers which contribute to the flooding.
>
> Other alternatives could be lowering the full capacity level. Taking preemptive action before a large rain forecast. Make more use of the desalination plant, which was built in 2010 as Environmentalist Tim Flannery said ‘Warragamba Dam will never be full again.’ Buy back properties that were allowed to develop on the flood plain. Future new bridges, eg Windsor Bridge, and roads to be built above flood levels.
>
> In 2015 Project Minister for West Sydney, Stuart Ayres, declared urban development would occur ‘as far as the eye can see’ on the Hawkesbury/Nepean flood plain. If this project goes ahead and the flooding upstream is prolonged, development on the flood plain will occur.
>
> The peaceful town of Warragamba is 1 kilometre from the construction site. The town people will be affected with noise, ground vibrations, dust and traffic. There is expected to be over 300 heavy and over 500 light vehicle movements per day and the construction time is expected to be 4 to 5 years. Heavy vehicle traffic will have a major impact to Wollondilly towns of The Oaks, Picton and Tahmoor. This extra traffic will cause problems for locals with extra congestion, noise, dust, less safety for pedestrians and road users, as these roads do not handle the current traffic.
>
> Please protect the Burragorang Valley from further flooding. Once it is damaged it will be lost forever.

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the Blue Mountains and I am familiar with many parts of the Mountains, both the residential areas and the World Heritage area. I have also been in the restricted parts of the catchment on official business. This proposal to increase the height of Warragamba Dam wall is disastrous. the flooding that it will cause will ruin many square kilometres of the catchment, drowning existing flora, promoting takeover by rapid-growing native and introduced species, and adversely affecting fauna. Of great significance will be the destruction of even more of the culture of the Gundungarra people. Prior to European settlement the Gundungarra had a thriving culture based in the Burragorang Valley. The significant remnants of that group were hunted out of that valley when the Warragamba Dam was built. Later they were hunted out of the "Gully" at Katoomba and replaced by a failed car race-track. It is about time the NSW authorities showed some respect for this group of traditional owners. Stop destroying the Burragorang and adjacent valleys.

To whom it may concern,
I am profoundly concerned by the flaws in the submission and by the lack of emphasis on vital ecological factors.
The World Heritage status and the cultural values of the Warragamba areas are being ignored. The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is severely endangered and risking its status.
The Gundungurra traditional owners have not given consent for the dam proposal to proceed - another fiasco and blatant disregard for Indigenous concerns, heritage and values.
A flood plain is required for Sydney and the we need to create large wetlands to absorb water and to refuse more housing in this significant natural wetland area below the dam.
We must learn how to manage water better.

Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission I am strongly opposed to the raising of the Warragamba dam wall. Such overdevelopment would lead to an unknown number of our important Aboriginal sites, our first custodians of the land, to be lost for ever, together with unacceptable loss and dangers to threatened species. It was most alarming to learn that NSW government’s own staff raised concerns internally, last year, that WaterNSW was attempting to force its ecological consultants to downgrade the dangers to threatened species from raising the raising of Warragamba Dam wall? What are they trying to hide from the public? This extraordinary revelation is enough to raise the strong concerns of any person or organisation examining this vexatious matter Precious native bushland and wildlife habitat estimated to be around 5,000 hectares would be lost, and would likely see 25 or more of our precious threatened native species, unnecessarily, pushed to extinction. [The Ecological Consultants Association of NSW raised the episode in a submission to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the state’s beleaguered biodiversity offsets scheme, saying the assessor was asked “to downplay the impacts of the project on biodiversity loss relating to a Critically Endangered Species.”] Additionally, no erudite justification, whatsoever, for the raising of the dam wall has ever been made that would convinced me of such an extreme, and well-justified, reasoning. Obviously, the sensible and far better solution is to slow, what is the the worlds highest rate of immigration, to either zero or adopt he previous sustainable levels, that earlier, astute, governments strictly adhered to! And, given the appalling planning, construction and mayhem of, seemingly all state government infrastructure projects, as has been reported by media, such as the CSELR light rail, Westconnex, or Metro under-capacity trains, and used as as a measure of the governments ability to get such a mammoth project completed on time and to expected, essential quality engineering standards, then the answer is an unequivocal No. Do not even think about it! Moreover, the Kowmung River, one of the areas expected to be flooded by the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. This further revelation comes as NSW Treasurer and Environment Minister Matt Kean recently told a parliamentary hearing that the economics of the $1.6 billion-plus proposal to raise the dam wall by at least 14 metres were “difficult” while being questioned by Labor over the government’s stance on the costly biodiversity impacts. We were told that the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by at least 14 metres will not stop flooding, but, instead, is to be done to “protect residents of the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley.” Many argue that the real reason is that the minister for western Sydney wants the wall raised is to allow another thirty thousand dwellings to be built on the flood plain. Clearly, it would appear that the minister does not understand the purpose of a flood plain. Instead, being relatively close to Sydney consumers, the flood plain an astute minister would protect the flood plain for low-level fresh produce farming activity, and no overdevelopment as proposed by the minister. In closing, it seems reassuring to learn that even the insurance industries’ support for the raising of the dam wall, has been withheld. Sincerely, John Boyle

Please do not ruin this beautiful habitat that future generations will only see a spoiled habitat like the old lake Pedder in Tasmania 3 lakes instead of 1 should have been done. Reconciliation to traditional owners would be a joke money over nature what a shameful look to them no wonder they don't trust white people

I am writing to you to support the proposal to increase the Dams wall height to create a safety margin for when the catchment is subjected to a significant rain event, as it was in March 2021.

We along with thousands of others lost significant assets during the March 2021 Flood. See attached image. (574 River Road Lower Portland). Our property under water!

Our loss was needless and unnecessary and would not have occurred had the Government taken the clear long-term advice given by its own department that the Dams Wall had to be lifted, with direction to ensure that the dam was always to have free capacity to allow for a significant rain event.

Our loss would not have occurred had the dam not been full at the same time as the significant rain event in the Warragamba catchment. Following link supports this finding: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/other/15655/Tabled%20document%20-%20March%202021%20flood%20event%20-%20Hawkesbury%20Nepean%20Valley%20-%20Infrastructure%20NSW.pdf

Our loss occurred as a DIRECT result of the dam overflowing as evidenced by the Governments own data. Had the dam been able to hold/store the runoff from the rain event and NOT overflow, our properties would NOT have gone under water!!

The said rain event also calls into question the decision NOT to start to release water from the dam 5 – 7 days before the rain event. BOM forecast very clearly evidenced a very significant rain event for this region and the decision to NOT start releasing water to create capacity to cater for the projected event and subsequent run off was a significant mistake.

The attached PDF 09122021102846-0001 data is extremely worrying as it supports many recent scientific reports suggesting that we will see a period of increased chance of MAJOR Floods in the Hawkesbury valley!

The ”Proposal” as presented will if followed go a very long way to help protect our properties in the future not to mention provide a very significant additional increase in the storage capacity for the Sydney basin.

If something is not done soon there will be further significant losses associated with further Major flooding events!

To whom it may concern,
I write to lodge my strong objection to the raising of Warragamba Dam.
I grew up enjoying the wonders of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and intend to continue to share that joy with my children and grandchildren.
The destruction of Aboriginal sites, the loss of precious bush land and habitat as a solution to poor planning which flew in the face of clear environmental factors is unacceptable and archaic.
There have been recommendations made as to the alternatives to this proposal which will have far less impact environmentally , societally , culturally and financially. We urge you to place those as the new strategy to alleviate the difficult circumstances of those living in housing which should never have been built on a floodplain .
Dams are the solution - proven to be problematic in numerous ways internationally- of the past . Choose the options made possible with the knowledge of the present and make the right decision for the future .

To whom it may concern,
As a Sydney resident i have enjoyed visiting the Blue Mountains on numerous occasions over 46 years. I have also conducted surveys of 1400 people in 13 user and stakeholder categories as part of a review of management practices for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), so I have some familiarity with studies and public discourse about environmental issues. Hence, I am very concerned about the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which has been conducted to investigate the proposal.
I find the EIS lacking in a number of respects, as follows.
The National Parks and Wildlife Service said it failed to address impacts on species and ecological communities affected by last year’s bushfires.
Heritage NSW said the EIS failed to properly consider cultural heritage values or adequately consult Traditional Owners.
The Commonwealth Environment Department said the evaluation failed to consider impacts on iconic species like the platypus, and told the NSW Government to redo the entire heritage assessment.
In fact, the EIS is so compromised that primary assessor for biodiversity studies Rachel Musgrave has just now resigned her position rather than have her ecologist reputation sullied by association with that EIS.
In conclusion, the EIS cannot be taken as reflecting a sound scientific analysis and must be rejected. Indeed, alternatives to raising the dam's wall must be seriously considered.
Thank you for your close attention to this vexed issue.
13/12 additional
To whom it may concern,
Having conducted surveys of 1400 people in 13 user and stakeholder categories as part of a review of management practices for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), I have some familiarity with conservation processes and procedures, as well as personal experiences as a frequent bushwalker in the Blue Mountains.
As regards the current EIS for raising the Warragamba Dam wall, I strongy reject its quality and its conclusions, for the following reasons.
SMEC Engineering, which conducted the environmental and cultural assessments for the project, have an established history of abusing indigenous rights and recently have been barred by 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, and Gundungurra traditional owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal to go forward.
Threatened species surveys are substantially lower 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.
I thank you in advance for your perceptive, enlightened stance on this unnecessary, destructive project.

To whom it may concern,
Please preserve the area and not unnecessarily raise the wall.

To whom it may concern,
As a regular visitor and walker to Blue Mountains National park over many decades, I am alarmed at the proposal to raise the dam wall due to many reasons.
ALTERNATIVES TO RAISING THE DAM WALL:
• 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.
SYSTEMIC FAILURES OF THE EIS:
• 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,
We employ public servants at the Department of Planning to ensure that irreparable damage does not happen in NSW. It is critical that we stop interfering with nature. There is always an alternative plan. Find it!
Save the environment for future generations.

To whom it may concern,
The EIS systemically fails to address the following issues
Threatened species
The following would be inundated by the Dam project:
• 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.
Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. YET no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken as I understand. Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
No amount of money could nor should offset the loss of species.
Aboriginal Culture
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Not only that, 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.
This is not good enough. At this time and age, we know better and we should do better
Business Case
The whole proposal is clearly to enable developeres to build on the floodplains. This is putting people's lives at risk when it's the only solution put forward and a risky one at that;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.
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.
The proposal to raise the dam wall should be rejected