As a resident of the Blue Mountains who cherishes our internationally recognised outstanding natural environment I oppose the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. Raising the dam wall will create unacceptible environmental damage to the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and destroy important Aboriginal cultural sites. And for what? So that developers can build housing estates on the flood plain north of Penrith Lakes, as Stuart Ayres proclaimed in a video. This is irresponsible and prioritises the interests of developers at the cost of destroying international environmental values and Aboriginal people's heritage.
Raising the Warragamba Dam wall will not stop flooding from the Grose River in Richmond and Windsor. The money proposed to be spent on raising the dam wall should be spent on less destructive flood mitigation measures and shoring up evacuation routes, not on putting more people in harm's way by building on that floodplain.

I'm deeply concerned about the impact raising the dam wall will have on our precious wild rivers and world heritage listed National park.
It is also dangerous and reckless to continue to build homes on flood plains. The option to raise the dam is more about developer profits and a balanced strategy for the flood plains.
Our wild rivers and national parks will incurre irreversible damage and destruction due to inundation.

Please do not proceed with the raising of the dam.

My family is of longstanding residence in the Greater Blue Mountains area and have seen so many schemes to dam the Colo and Grose River for come and go. the original daming of the Warragamba River to create Lake Burragorang ended and destroyed indigenious and settler Culture in the area and I do not want further damage done to the area by the raising of the wall by the current proposal of 17 metres that will impact habitat, cultural and geological sites. There has to be detetrimental impacts to areas that are flooded for periods that have never been subject to such floods.
In my view the EIS is systematically flawed as:
• 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.
Further the Blue Mountains Heritage Areas of which I am extremely proud is under attach and the cultural and natural features will be destroyed or heavily modidied by the impact if this proposal goes ahead, inckuded the theatened habitats emu and regent honeyeater populations
In the current environment it is not tenable that the tradition owners the Gundungurra people have not been given adequate access to cultural sites and that have not given a consent for the raising of the wasl to proceed.

There are also alternatives to the raising of the wall that can be implemented. Also the likely the push for further development on the Hawkesbury- Nepean floodplains will further imapct on Cumberlan Plains vegetation and create greater hazards for resident of these areas
The other options include:
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.

To whom it may concern,
I am deeply saddened by this advancement to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. The continued insensitivity of the impacts on the Gundungurra First Nation people and the detachment from the facts in this EIS is quite incredible. The inadequate length of time for the community to review what is an cumbersome and misleading document is acute dishonesty and poor form.
Gundungurra First Nation
The Gundungurra have already lost so much of their cultural heritage and sacred sites when the dam was built in the first instance. The irreparable damage back then has gone unrecognised and uncompensated by the state government so it is offensive to speak of raising the dam wall again with additional destruction and disregard for the longest continuing culture on earth.
What is needed is a more thorough First Nation Cultural Assessment including further archaeological field surveys as well as substantial and ongoing time meeting with the Gundungurra to discuss their cultural heritage.
What is warranted, is to address the implications to the Gundungurra Indigenous Land Use Agreement established under the Native Title Act 1993 that may potentially extinguish Native Title.
Integrity of the EIS and community engagement
The inconsistency of the 1:20 year flood data over the 1:100 year that was previously used in the preliminary EIA to estimate the ‘Impact Zone’ and required Biodiversity Offsets but then choosing 1:100 year and 1:500 year event data in promoting the flood mitigation values of the dam.
Understating the flood mitigation zone of 14 metre above full supply level and using the 10.3 metres in this EIS. This is particularly concerning for significant flood events, a predicted outcome of climate change, which would result in a much greater and notable inundation area. In addition, the assessment methodologies for climate change risk are out of date and does not meet current standards.
Superficial and exclusionary assessments of water quality, aquatic ecology and biodiversity which outrageously impairs and undermines the impacts and damage to the Blue Mountains World Heritage area.
Inadequate examination and review of alternatives to the dam raising such as hydrological modelling of rainwater and storm water harvesting and reuse as well as flood adaption measures and other water sensitive initiatives across the whole catchment. This kind of approach would bring the EIS in line with the state governments own Draft Great Sydney Water Strategy.
The fact the EIS confirms it cannot prevent significant flooding and it’s only a partial flood mitigation measure is elementary and overlooked.
Furthermore it is appalling that legislation has already been passed (Water NSW Amendment Warragamba Dam Bill 2018) effectively allowing the temporary flooding of the World Heritage Blue Mountains National Park before any serious environmental and cultural assessment has occurred.
In Conclusion
The state government's commitment of community consultation for this EIS has been formed only with the intention of looking the part and bulking out a document so it's bulging with confidence of itself when in fact, it's the equivalent of fattening a turkey for the Christmas slaughter.

I am opposed to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. Raising the level of the lake will diminishing the aestehtic values of the World Heritage area by flooding areas such as the lower Kowmung River. It will also destroy areas of indigenous cultural heritage, due to flooding of sites along the margins of the lake. Raising the level of the lake will also require the removal of forest and vegetation around the lake, removing critical habitat for animals and birds. There is not an adequate business case to justify raising the dam wall, destroying further heritage in the state, and creating a huge expense for taxpayers.

I oppose the raising of the Warragamba dam wall due to the significant negative environmental impact on flora and fauna and Aboriginal areas of significance.

To whom it may concern,
The area that will be affected by temporary inundation should the Warragamba Dam wall be raised is well known to me. Since around 1970 I have undertaken many bushwalks in that area including the lower Kowmung and lower Cox Rivers. Ironically the construction of the dam significant restricted access to the Kowmung River allowing this magnificent wild area to be designated the Kanangra-Boyd Wilderness and become a significant component of the Greater Blue Mountains Heritage Area. This approximately 1 million hectare Area must surely be one of the defining features of the Sydney area and a major contribution to its international reputation.
I make this submission in order to assert my opposition to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by 12 m. The water retained during floods would lead to a major increase in the area inundated for a sufficient time to kill vegetation and leave silt that would inevitably be colonised by weeds. The result would be an unsightly mess.
The commentary by experts on the EIS indicate that it is a considerably flawed document that is completely inadequate as a basis for a decision to proceed with the project. Inadequacies of the EIS relate to the extent of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage assessment, the threatened species assessment, and lack of adequate assessment of the impact of the recent unprecedented bushfires.
While the detriment to the environment of raising the dam wall is clear, the benefits are less so. Even the LGAs that would appear to gain some benefit (Hawkesbury and Penrith Councils) oppose the project. This would seem to be in keeping with the fact that many alternative and more cost-effective options for protecting the floodplain have been proposed, but not comprehensively assessed in the EIS. It is also noteworthy that much of flood water that would affect the lower Nepean/Hawkesbury (e.g. from the Grose and Colo River catchments) would not be affected by raising the wall of the Dam. Thus, even if the Warragamba wall is raised a significant flooding risk for the lower Hawkesbury remains.
I confirm my opposition to raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. I furthermore support consideration of a combination of alternative options as a more cost-effective way of achieving flood mitigation in the Nepean/Hawkesbury river system.

The destruction of wilderness that raising the dam wall would cause is not okay. Going against the wishes of traditional owners is not okay. Please don’t do this. This place is my home, this is habitat, this is land that needs protecting not inundating.

Thank you for reading my submission.
I can only ask – is it worth it? We don’t know the unintended consequences of this kind of construction project. Is the cultural, historical and environmental destruction worth it? Is the money being spent on this project worth it? Seeing as the areas (Penrith/Castlereagh/Windsor) most affected by the latest flood catastrophe (and flooding in western Sydney in general) were not connected to the Warragamba River system flow, it doesn’t make sense to raise the wall.
We are unsure of how the river systems will change, where is the modelling to show us/assure us that it won’t create more damage.
The Gudungurra people are the recognised custodians of the land that will be destroyed by the raising of the wall. It is not only destructive and disrespectful to the Gundungurra people, but also proves total contempt for UNESCO, international law and our responsibilities as co-custodians of this country.
I’m aware that you have considered the alternatives:
• For flood mitigation – improved infrastructure and evacuation routes
• For water supply – desalination projects
Seeing as you don’t have the support of IAG and other insurance companies, that should prove a stark warning. If it’s about money, there has got to be better and much less destructive and contemptuous business opportunities. The Premier knows this, he’s been impressive so far in protecting Gardens of Stone and initiating other conservation projects, as well as initiating and continuing some good lucrative (and not-so-destructive) construction projects.
Please protect what we have now, while we can. It’s worth it.
Again, thank you.

I am deeply concerned about the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall. As someone who spends a lot of time in the Blue Mountains with family and friends, I have grown to appreciate the unique natural beauty of the landscape. I also feel strongly that the indigneous history of the land should be respected, better understood and celebrated. The Gundagurra people have cared for the land for thousands of years and it is crucial this is understood, and their stewardship and perspectives of land use elevated.
Raising the damn wall will invariably have significant environment, ecological and cultural impacts which will not further the best interests of the people of NSW. The minister must seriously consider the impacts of this decision through listening and unstanding the views of the experts and local people. Gundungurra traditional owners must be consulted before this project proceeds. A failure to do so, continues a history of subjugation of indigenous peoples in Australia. We must, at all costs, seek instead to engage in the work of reconciliation with traditional owners and indeed the land itself.
This project will have severe ecological impacts on a world heritage and area and on cultural sites that cannot be undone. This will tarnish not only the land itself, thousands of species of flora and fauna that live there, and also the reputation of the minister, this government and indeed the people of NSW.
I strongly oppose this project and feverntly believe a more thorough and considered process should be undertaken to determine alternatives.