To whom it may concern, The world-heritage-listed Blue Mountains are precious for many reasons - threatened plant and animal species, indigenous cultural sites, one of the last wild rivers, the Kowmung, near Sydney - and should not be flooded as per this proposal - an area which Australia promised the rest of the world to protect. Why has Matt Kean omitted to add this site to his list of "Assets of Intergenerational Significance"? There are also other ways of mitigating flood events that will not harm the environment.

To whom it may concern,
Having lived in the Blue Mountains for my entire life, any projects that would have a significant ecological impact concern me greatly. Working in hospitality in Katoomba, I know that a large majority of the businesses in the Blue Mountains are reliant on tourism, and as the effects of this project will be visible from Echo Point (one of the largest tourist attractions in the Blue Mountains) I am concerned about the finical impact of this project on our tourism industry.
This project will inundate 5,700 hectares of National Parks and 1,300 hectares of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, causing significant environmental damage. Additionally, it has been estimated that the project would flood 1,500 indigenous cultural heritage sites. Such damage to the natural and cultural aspects of the Blue Mountains is in breach of Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention and could impact the World Heritage status of the Blue Mountains, consequently impacting the tourism industry of the Blue Mountains. According to Destination NSW's report Economic Contribution of Tourism to NSW, 2016-2017, the tourism industry of the Blue Mountains contributed $34.2 billion to the NSW economy (6% of the state's GSP) and employed approximately 171,000 people. Considering this, I believe that this project poses too great a risk to both the environmental and cultural integrity of the Blue Mountains as well having the potential to endanger citizens jobs and a significant percentage of the states GSP.
Along with these considerations, it is my belief that we as a people have a moral obligation to protect the land that we live on, the species that live on this land, especially endangered species such as the emu, koala, and regent honeyeater (all whose habitats will be flooded by this project) and indigenous cultural heritage sites.
Due to the factors mentioned in this letter, I strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
After visiting the Blue Mountains over a period of 35 years, my personal connection with the landscape, flora and fauna is integral to my own mental health, physical health and that of my families.
If someone can be so affected by the Blue Mountains over 35 years, then it's beyond comprehension how important that same landscape is to an ancient culture that dates back well over seven thousand years.
Over ONE THOUSAND sites have been identified as cultural heritage sites and they would all be directly effected by damming the Warragamba to the proposed new level. This fact is alone is a shocking disregard and offence to one of the oldest cultures on earth!
I am completely opposed to any further damming of the Warragamba Dam which would destroy ancient and culturally sensitive sites. The loss of unique eucalyptus species is also unacceptable.
The fact that the proposal disregards the value a World Heritage Area denotes and underlines, is a complete disregard for what is integral to the health of our own species!

To whom it may concern,
I am sure most people objecting, will focus on the permanent loss of natural habitat, which also concerns me greatly.
However, I feel what we have now is not managed correctly, if we had:
- Water restrictions all the time, not just in drought
- Fix the leaks
- Educate the population in water management for the home and gardens
- Have water tanks fitted to all houses for water catchement
These few changes in what we do would mitigate the need for raising the dam wall, cost leass money and would save us losing our heritage areas.

To whom it may concern,
DON"T DO IT!

To whom it may concern,
I am extremely concerned about any proposal to reduce Australia's current native bushland. We have a biodiveristy emergency in this country and this means that existing habitat should be preserved at all costs. This means maintaining habitat must take priority over development.
I would like the minister to consider and implement alternatives for water storage and flood mitigation. Alternative options should be thoroughly researched and presented in the EIS.
My current position is that I oppose the proposal to raise the dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
It's about time that the Australian Government & all State Governments invested in Desalination Plants for all of Australia's Coastal Cities & took a look at what other Countries have done to provide consistent water supply for their needs & move away from drowning arable land & forests which are increasingly shrinking due to over development.

To whom it may concern,
Developer profits to build housing in flood plains at the expense of the fragile environment is not acceptable.

The Dam wall should not be raised Please listen to the scientists

To whom it may concern,
This is the most significant threat to Australia’s World Heritage in decades. Raising the dam wall will flood pristine wild rivers and important bushwalking areas west of Sydney.
If the dam wall is raised, more than 1,000 sites of immense cultural and historical significance in the beautiful Burragorang Valley — irreplaceable Indigenous cave art galleries and occupation and burial sites — will be drowned under metres of muddy water.
Houses in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley will not be protected by raising the Warragamba Dam wall, the main reason the government gives to justify this destruction. Almost half of the flooding in the valley comes from waters that are not controlled by Warragamba Dam. This seems to be a ploy to allow the government to open up flood prone land in the Hawkesbury valley for development.
Upstream inundation would also destroy the mighty Kowmung River, 6,000 hectares of the World Heritage-listed Blue Mountains National Park, and further endanger already threatened species like the regent honeyeater and the Camden white gum.
The impact assessment has been heavily condemned by several agencies:
• 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 platypusand has recommended that the heritage assessment should be redone.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose the proposal to raise the Warrgamba Dam wall for several reasons, including
• Raising the dam wall would not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream as, on average, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment.
• Too much of the Blue Mountains World Heritage would be lost, including Threatened Ecological Communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland and habitat for endangered and critically endangered species such as the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney’s last Emu population.
• There are problems with the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for the proposal.
I urge you to reject the project.