Panel installation and heavy BESS equipment will compact soils and alter microbial ecosystems, reducing fertility.
The assessment lacks any field studies, ignoring impacts on long-term agricultural productivity.
This demonstrates negligent disregard for cross-disciplinary environmental science.

Bushfire modeling is inadequate.
Infrastructure will ignite and exacerbate fires, yet the assessment claims risk is “low” without worst-case scenario simulations.

Given NSW’s fire history, this is scientifically indefensible, leaving both the project and surrounding communities dangerously exposed.

The assessment projects job creation but fails to consider huge economic losses from land contamination, devaluation, long-term remediation, and agricultural productivity loss. Local employment may be minimal, and costs to local and federal governments will be catastrophic. Promoters offer an illusory economic case masking real financial hazards.

The assessment neglects strategic dependencies on hostile CCP made panels and inverters, including cybersecurity vulnerabilities.

Using predominantly Chinese-sourced components without risk mitigation creates a national security nightmare, particularly for critical grid infrastructure supporting regional populations.

The Department claims “local impacts are offset by climate mitigation benefits.”
This is legally and scientifically invalid: climate action cannot justify poisoning productive agricultural land or contaminating water supplies. The project prioritises corporate profits over food security, environmental safety, and rural community welfare.

NSW already hosts numerous, toxic contaminating solar and battery projects.
The Garoo assessment considers its project in isolation, with no regional cumulative impact study on soil health, water systems, biodiversity, or agricultural production.
Ignoring cumulative effects shows a fundamental failure of scientific and regulatory standards, increasing the risk of irreversible regional damage.

The assessment repeatedly cites the lies and deception in the misinformation Large-Scale Solar Guidelines FAQ to assert panels are safe.
These guidelines are opinion-based, not peer-reviewed, and irrelevant under Australian field conditions.
Using them as justification is misleading and legally questionable, ignoring the urgent need for independent risk research in Australian climates.

It’s wrong to misrepresent community impacts!

Community concerns are repeatedly dismissed as “perceived.”
Residents raise legitimate fears about soil contamination, water safety, property devaluation, and health risks.
Calling these concerns perceptions rather than credible evidence-based risks undermines democracy and reflects a gross failure to obtain social licence, which is legally and ethically required.

I Object on the following grounds:
• It is destructive to native flora and fauna and harmful to the public;
• Construction will leave a legacy of land destruction that is unlikely to be rectified by the builder;
• It is an abomination on the natural landscape;
• It is part of a system that costs billions, does not work reliably and attempts to solve a problem that does not exist, in other words useless and irresponsible use of public funds;
• All such infrastructures should be built at developer’s expense, NOT on public funds. We are told wind and solar are the cheapest, well prove it, remove all subsidises - do not build this system on public funds;
• The TOTAL cost has not been verified by independent experts;
• There is NO verified scientific basis for reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere so this project is a total waste of public money, along with all other such projects.  There is in fact reliable verifiable scientific proof that CO2 is beneficial to plant life and by extension to human life on earth.

I strongly object to the construction of the Garoo solar farm. The disturbance of building and maintaining of such large scale solar farms ( which I am an immediate neighbour ) will pose an direct and ongoing disturbance to my business which is my main source of income. Not knowing if I can maintain financial security plays heavily with my mental heath.