To whom it may concern,
It would be unforgivable to drown a world heritage area ostensibly to save downstream housing developments from flooding. Flood plains are known to be rich agricultural land. Don't build houses on flood plains. Leave them for farming.

To whom it may concern,
Re: raising the wall of the Warragamba Dam, l would like to strongly protest against such a proposal.
Such a move would not only be an enviromental catastrophe but a blight on the world stage for World Heritage listed National Parks.
Why must the NSW Government always take the easy option and in the process destroy the essence of what make NSW great, falling straight into the hands of Developers greed and demands (which is what the raising of the wall is really about). Makes you wonder how safe are we in the hands of a Government that constantly sells us out. Telling us it's for jobs and growth and a better future - but for who and for what.
Are we not learning anything from the over developed,over polutted, ugly cities already in the world.
New Blue Mountain Tourist Ad - "Come visit the Blue Mountains the ugliest, desolute man destroyed enviroment of a National Park on earth. "

To whom it may concern,
How about consideration to cultural, environmental and recreational reasons for NOT raising the Warragamba Dam wall. Less concern for developers who want to make money out of yet more houses in the flood plain, would be the popular view.
Charging much more for water use would go a long way to converting users to the value of water on this very special continent we call home.

To whom it may concern,I grew up in rural NSW and grew to pappreciate the beauty of our busn and wildlife.Whenever I either travel through or walk around the Blue mountains I am always amazed.
I have grave concerns fro the proposed Warragamba extension due to th efollowing reasons
• 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.
• 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.
There are 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.

I ask that you take the concerns of your constituents and reverse this decsion.

To whom it may concern,
I am a keen bushwalker, and am devastated to think of the damage that the proposal will do to the Kowmung river and the world heritage bushland that surrounds it.
Surely we have reached a point in our nation's history when we must take our precious environment seriously, instead of continuing to damage it in the name of a spurious 'progress'.

To whom it may concern, There is world experience in the tragedy of dam walls that have been risen and then fail with ensuing loss to nature, including water quality, flora , fauna and humans. Please seek alternatives to this proposal which in itself has arisen without permission from traditional owners and is indicative of continued failure of Environment Impact Statements to be thorough. In this era of instability it is unwise and against the science of preserving structural integrity, protecting world heritage and cultural sites. I urge you to look at alternatives to raising Warragamba dam wall please.

To whom it may concern,
I am against raising the dam wall to satify animal agricuture. Suggesting instead to transition to non animal crops to humans not livestock - requiring much less water and land clearing, as well as reducing harmfull greeenhouse emmissions

To whom it may concern,
I have been bushwalking, camping and adventuring in the Blue Mountains all my life... with girl guides as a youngster, with outdoor clubs and friends, and with all members of my family. It is my haven and my escape from the pressures of the inner city where I live.
I don't believe that it is appropriate or sound to proceed with plans to raise the dam wall. From planning to consultation with indigenous communities, to safeguarding the protection of species and habitats in the area, and safeguarding aboriginal cultural heritage sites... the list is endless of areas where the whole proposal falls short.
I strongly oppose the raising of the Waragamba Dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
I am opposed to raising the Warragamba Dam Wall. The damage to the environment which would be caused by such an act outweighs any real benefit.

To whom it may concern,

I am greatly opposed to the raising of Warragamba Dam.
The engineering firm (SMEC Engineering) who undertook the environmental and cultural assessments for the project have an established history of abusing Indigenous rights, and have recently been barred from the world bank.
Our recent severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. I am concerned that no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken.
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Also, 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. 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.
I question the government's reasons for wanting to push ahead with this disasterous plan and urge everyone involved to reconsider, keeping in mind the damage to the environment the raising would inflict.
Thank you for your attention.