To whom it may concern,
The EIS systemically fails to address the following issues
Threatened species
The following would be inundated by the Dam project:
• 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.
Severe fires during the summer of 2019/20 devastated 81% of Blue Mountains Heritage Area. YET no post-bushfire field surveys have been undertaken as I understand. Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained.
No amount of money could nor should offset the loss of species.
Aboriginal Culture
Only 27% of the impact area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. Not only that, 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.
This is not good enough. At this time and age, we know better and we should do better
Business Case
The whole proposal is clearly to enable developeres to build on the floodplains. This is putting people's lives at risk when it's the only solution put forward and a risky one at that;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.
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.
The proposal to raise the dam wall should be rejected

To whom it may concern,
We employ public servants at the Department of Planning to ensure that irreparable damage does not happen in NSW. It is critical that we stop interfering with nature. There is always an alternative plan. Find it!
Save the environment for future generations.

To whom it may concern,
As a regular visitor and walker to Blue Mountains National park over many decades, I am alarmed at the proposal to raise the dam wall due to many reasons.
ALTERNATIVES TO RAISING THE DAM WALL:
• 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.
SYSTEMIC FAILURES OF THE EIS:
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
Please preserve the area and not unnecessarily raise the wall.

To whom it may concern,
As a Sydney resident i have enjoyed visiting the Blue Mountains on numerous occasions over 46 years. I have also conducted surveys of 1400 people in 13 user and stakeholder categories as part of a review of management practices for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), so I have some familiarity with studies and public discourse about environmental issues. Hence, I am very concerned about the proposal to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which has been conducted to investigate the proposal.
I find the EIS lacking in a number of respects, as follows.
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 platypus, and told the NSW Government to redo the entire heritage assessment.
In fact, the EIS is so compromised that primary assessor for biodiversity studies Rachel Musgrave has just now resigned her position rather than have her ecologist reputation sullied by association with that EIS.
In conclusion, the EIS cannot be taken as reflecting a sound scientific analysis and must be rejected. Indeed, alternatives to raising the dam's wall must be seriously considered.
Thank you for your close attention to this vexed issue.
13/12 additional
To whom it may concern,
Having conducted surveys of 1400 people in 13 user and stakeholder categories as part of a review of management practices for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), I have some familiarity with conservation processes and procedures, as well as personal experiences as a frequent bushwalker in the Blue Mountains.
As regards the current EIS for raising the Warragamba Dam wall, I strongy reject its quality and its conclusions, for the following reasons.
SMEC Engineering, which conducted the environmental and cultural assessments for the project, have an established history of abusing indigenous rights and recently have been barred by 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, and Gundungurra traditional owners have not given free, prior and informed consent for the Dam proposal to go forward.
Threatened species surveys are substantially lower 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.
I thank you in advance for your perceptive, enlightened stance on this unnecessary, destructive project.

To whom it may concern,
I write to lodge my strong objection to the raising of Warragamba Dam.
I grew up enjoying the wonders of the Blue Mountains World Heritage Area and intend to continue to share that joy with my children and grandchildren.
The destruction of Aboriginal sites, the loss of precious bush land and habitat as a solution to poor planning which flew in the face of clear environmental factors is unacceptable and archaic.
There have been recommendations made as to the alternatives to this proposal which will have far less impact environmentally , societally , culturally and financially. We urge you to place those as the new strategy to alleviate the difficult circumstances of those living in housing which should never have been built on a floodplain .
Dams are the solution - proven to be problematic in numerous ways internationally- of the past . Choose the options made possible with the knowledge of the present and make the right decision for the future .

I am writing to you to support the proposal to increase the Dams wall height to create a safety margin for when the catchment is subjected to a significant rain event, as it was in March 2021.

We along with thousands of others lost significant assets during the March 2021 Flood. See attached image. (574 River Road Lower Portland). Our property under water!

Our loss was needless and unnecessary and would not have occurred had the Government taken the clear long-term advice given by its own department that the Dams Wall had to be lifted, with direction to ensure that the dam was always to have free capacity to allow for a significant rain event.

Our loss would not have occurred had the dam not been full at the same time as the significant rain event in the Warragamba catchment. Following link supports this finding: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/other/15655/Tabled%20document%20-%20March%202021%20flood%20event%20-%20Hawkesbury%20Nepean%20Valley%20-%20Infrastructure%20NSW.pdf

Our loss occurred as a DIRECT result of the dam overflowing as evidenced by the Governments own data. Had the dam been able to hold/store the runoff from the rain event and NOT overflow, our properties would NOT have gone under water!!

The said rain event also calls into question the decision NOT to start to release water from the dam 5 – 7 days before the rain event. BOM forecast very clearly evidenced a very significant rain event for this region and the decision to NOT start releasing water to create capacity to cater for the projected event and subsequent run off was a significant mistake.

The attached PDF 09122021102846-0001 data is extremely worrying as it supports many recent scientific reports suggesting that we will see a period of increased chance of MAJOR Floods in the Hawkesbury valley!

The ”Proposal” as presented will if followed go a very long way to help protect our properties in the future not to mention provide a very significant additional increase in the storage capacity for the Sydney basin.

If something is not done soon there will be further significant losses associated with further Major flooding events!