To whom it may concern,
The EIS regarding the dam is a very inferior document.
1. It failed to report on the entirety of the subject area and the risks and impacts which would be triggered by the proposed plan to enlarge the dam.
2. It classified all indigenous cultural heritage items located in the small percentage of the area actually searched as of low significance in a table contained in the report albeit in a tiny paragraph elsewhere admitting the significance to local indigenous people.
3. It failed to comment on the potential negative impact for climate change. Australia has just signed up to a global plan to prevent deforestation to address climate change issues.
This dam plan will destroy massive segments of the World Heritage listed Bushland and so create massive deforestation and hence contribute adversely to speeding up climate change precisely at a time when countries are promoting changes to our standard practices to reduce climate change. This issue simply has not been considered.
4. The plan fails to consider the real possibility of human induced seismic activity in a geologically unstable area where earthquakes frequently occur already albeit usually at a low magnitude.
The NSW Dam Authority [ and other scientific bodies] report that there is a risk of seismic activity triggered by very large bodies of water
This in fact did occur after the current dam was constructed when two significant earthquakes were triggered one at Picton and one at Robertson within 5-10 years of the original construction which is according to reported science the potential risk when constructing very large dams.
Of course, some 60 years ago the development surrounding the area of the dam was far less than today.
Given the area is honeycombed with old mines - the possibility of human induced seismic activity because of increased pressure on the surface of the landscape which would be created by the increase in the dam size, is quite a real threat.
Only recently the effect of a quake in northern Victoria above magnitude 5 was seen to have caused actual building damage as far away as Melbourne and was recorded in NSW and as far away as Qld.
5. The allegation of flood mitigation fails to take account of the fact that many of the rivers which may cause flooding in the area are not and would not be captured by the dam.
It is in any event unwise to build extensively on flood plain land as developers wish to do, putting profit over people and with complete disregard for safeguarding the environment now and into the future.
6. The report also fails to give adequate regard to the impact on wild life especially including endangered bird species whose home is in the areas of the heritage forest which would be flooded or adversely impacted by rising water levels for long periods of time.
7. This plan to destroy much of our world heritage forest is a travesty and will invite catastrophe on many fronts.
It would risk the loss of world heritage status at a time Australia is asked to and will do its bit to improve the planet and prevent destruction of natural habitats unnecessarily which includes making decisions which limit negative climate change impacts. The majority of Australians see the need to balance development against the need for protecting the planet.
The plan to increase the size of the dam will damage this section of the planet for no real overall benefit to the wider community and once destroyed it is destroyed forever.
Destroying a bush heritage would hardly be a good look in the eyes of the world and the proposal really is an indictment on those who want to push through this plan.

This project must not go ahead the destruction that it would cause is not negotiable

Why destroy nature when does not make life better? Why destroy World Heritage sites?? It is NOT your land to do whatever you want.

To whom it may concern,
I am strongly opposed to the proposal to raise Warragamba dam.
The well-publicised and disastrous effects would include destruction of prime national park bushland, with further threats to endangered species, notably the regent honeyeater.
Aboriginal sacred sites would be inundated.
I don't believe that any possible benefit could outweigh the loss of even more habitat.

To whom it may concern,

As a NSW resident who spent nearly 30 years living in Western Sydney flood plains near Penrith and substantial time in the Blue Mountains wilderness, I write in firm opposition to the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.

Despite no longer living in the region, my heart and mind very much remains with the Blue Mountains. This has particularly been the case over the last 2 years following the devastating and unprecedented damage to World Heritage National Park following the 2019-20 bushfire season. I am filled with dismay, upon the added consideration that some of the most pristine, untouched wilderness that remains may disappear forever if the Warragamba Dam wall is raised. As an avid trail runner and 5 year participant in the Ultra Trail Australia 100, I have experienced the magic of the Blue Mountains well into the valley and below the canopy that few ever get to see. We have had the privilege of the Gundungurra Traditional Owners sharing these special places with us.

Kedumba Valley and surrounds is just one of these very special places - a place that will disappear or become damaged beyond comprehension as part of the water backflows that come from raising the wall. It breaks my heart to consider that places such as this may forever be underwater due to despicable planning decisions fuelled by greed in the same way that the Burragorang Valley that was formed for the existing dam will never again see the light of day.

Despite being an umbrella term used for the National Park, the Blue Mountains is incredibly diverse and not one and the same; especially beneath the canopy that few tourists or government officials will ever visit. What we stand to lose through the potential raising of the dam wall cannot be experienced or replaced elsewhere within the confines of the Blue Mountains National Park, or indeed elsewhere in NSW or Australia. This is even after considering that we have already lost several other special places in the Park that will never again be the same after the devastating bushfires, floods and landslides that followed. In a different valley to that impacted by the dam wall raise, the Blue Gum Forest in the Grose Valley in Blackheath is just one of recently destroyed places of natural significance following the Gospers Mountain bushfire. Not only does this outcome have personal significance to locals or anyone in the bushwalking community, but just this example of irreparable damage is likely already putting the World Heritage Status of the Blue Mountains National Park at risk alongside the estimated 80% of the Park that were fire affected in that horrific season.

More than 12 months post-fire I have re-visited the Blue Gum Forest and it could best be described as an environmental wasteland that fills one with deep grief – despite the well-known Australian platitude that the bush will just ‘bounce back’ after fire or ‘normal’ environmental events, any of us who deeply care about the Blue Mountains and spend significant time in these special places can assure you that this is simply not the case. Similarly, I believe an overarching desktop view has been taken with flippant regard towards the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall by pen pushers in Sydney who have never experienced these special places. I know that raising the Warragamba Dam wall will be equally as disastrous on a personal, environmental (flora and fauna) and cultural grounds as the 2019-2020 bushfire season and its aftermath has been.

It is well known that the initial surveying to document the environmental impact of raising the wall was lacklustre, underwhelming and lacking accuracy. Equally put forth, is that raising the wall will destroy this wilderness and sites of cultural significance for no good reason. Contrary to belief, this will not prevent flooding on the flood plains. They are called ‘flood plains’ for a reason – as humans there is only an extent to which we can control nature with our arrogance. Many of the inflows and tributaries to the Nepean River further downstream of the Warragamba Dam wall are known to contribute to most of the flooding during severe events such as that of early 2021. As such raising the wall is futile, poorly thought out and a weak pork-barrelled political strategy.

As just one voice of many, I urge you to please NOT raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

As residents of the Blue Mountains with an interest in regeneration, and also being active members of Windsor PaddlesSports Club, we can understand both the impact of inundating the mountains by holding back floodwater, and the impact of flooding rain on the Nepean and Hawkesbury plains.
Neither is a good thing in today’s world, but the latter is a natural occurrence.
The river has flooded for many thousands of years, probably longer, and the result, despite farmlands being destroyed for an occasional season, was wonderfully fertile soils from which Sydney and surrounds could be fed.
The Blue Mountains and World Heritage areas are not areas accustomed to floods. Everything in that environment relies on the ecosystem being maintained. While temporary flood waters will not destroy everything, the ecosystem will be undermined and the diversity irretrievably damaged. Repeated floodings, a real possibility due to climate change, will magnify the destruction.
Aboriginal cultural heritage sites are precious. To consider damaging them for a flood mitigation scheme that has other options is very hard to understand, let alone explain to indigenous people and our own grandchildren.
Town planners have always understood the potential for flooding on the plains and isolation of higher regions, yet houses have been given permission to build there without providing safe infrastructure and exit roads in the event of serious flooding. Government agreement to consider building even more houses in these regions is hard to comprehend.
We shouldn’t forget the February 2020 flood when the Warragamba Dam wall held back all the water flowing into Lake Burragorang and yet the water still rapidly rose in the Hawkesbury and submerged Richmond Bridge and the old Windsor Bridge, and was only a metre or two off submerging the new Windsor Bridge, then under construction, which is only 3 metres higher.
We strongly oppose the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall for a number of reasons:
1. It will not prevent the natural floodplains of the Nepean and Hawkesbury regions being impacted from heavy rainfall in the Grose and Nepean River catchments, as well as from South and Cattai Creeks.
2. It will permanently impact the ecosystem of the Blue Mountains National Park and World Heritage areas, and damage or destroy invaluable Aboriginal sites.
3. The huge amount of money to build the wall could be better spent relocating people in homes susceptible to serious flooding and building safety infrastructure. This will also free up valuable agricultural land in close proximity to Sydney.

Thank you for reading and considering our submission,
Judy & Phil Greenidge

To whom it may concern,
I am a resident of the beautiful Blue Mountains and I am strongly opposed to this project, for the following important reasons.
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area is not just a world class National Park. In 2000 it was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. Raising the Warragamba dam wall and consequent damage to natural and cultural values would be a clear breach of these undertakings and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
An estimated 65 kilometres of wilderness rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, 1,300 hectares of which is within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, would be inundated by the Dam project. This includes:
- 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.
Over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal.
The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been severely and repeatedly criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
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.
The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project has 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.
For all these significant reasons I am strongly opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam walls. Alternatives must be investigated in order to preserve the integrity of this precious part of New South Wales. I implore the NSW Government to heed my concerns and stop this destructive project from going ahead.

To whom it may concern,
This is my personal submission to the EIS for the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam. I object to the proposal because of it's adverse impacts on the World Heritage values of the area which is proposed to be flooded.
The project would result in the permanent loss of natural, ecological, research, historical and cultural values of the land.
Natural occurrences such as sea level rise and flooding have occurred in the past, but the current proposal to raise the dam wall to prevent downstream flooding and enable land development would have major ecological impacts and social costs that exceed the potential economic benefits of the project.
The population of the Greater Sydney Region is continuing to increase at a rapid rate but there are alternatives to further urban development on the Hawkesbury River Flood Plain, which is also an area that contributes significantly to the economy of Sydney through food production.

The proposal to raise the dam wall is not the best strategic outcome for the River and it's catchment which physically occupy a large proportion of the Sydney Basin. Too many major proposals are publicly announced and then approval is fast tracked. This must not happen with the current proposal. The public want to see the River and it's catchment protected for future generations to enjoy and share.

To whom it may concern,
This glows against the whole interest of biodiversity and permanently reduces the available land for habitat by natural animals. I strongly disagree with this action and if it proceeds believe that the consequences will be similar to the ramifications that Rio Tinto suffered after blasting the Jukkan gorge. You have been warned

The warragamba catchment is previous wilderness, the dam itself is already sufficient, it is all about developers greed to raise the dam, in an area where the greater region has been so affected by bushfire and consequent loss of numerous species flora and fauna, that habitat and ecosystems must remain intact around the dam and in its water flow trajectory
Do not build on flood plains.