To whom it may concern,
Please do not ever raise the Warragamba Dam wall. The Gundungurra Aboriginal community have made it very clear that this would cause great losses to their cultural sites and also threaten endangered wildlife.
I would urge you to instead consider funding home, business and community rain water tanks in Sydney as so much water that falls on Sydney is not captured.

I support the Proposal.

I believe the proposal will benefit the Nepean Hawkesbury river systems on a flood mitigation basis, the modification of the Auxiliary Emergency Spillway from a fuse plug type to a controlled overflow type is a true plus. My concern is about flooding at Wallacia, while there is localised flooding during a major rain event along Jerrys Creek which flows into the Nepean River, when water is released from Warragamba Dam it flows into the Nepean river at Norton’s Basin downstream of the Wallacia Weir. The natural flow of the Nepean river through the Village of Wallacia is impeded by the Norton’s Basin junction and the flow restrictions in the Nepean/Hawkesbury river systems this causes backwater flooding at Wallacia.

My question is, I can see a reduction of flooding at Wallacia in small and medium flood events, but what will happen in say a 1-100 or 1% AEP (Annual Exceedance Probability) the 1% AEP is used by councils for Development Applications. We have not (to my memory) had a 1-100 rain event in over a 100 years at Wallacia. In 1873 a major flood was recorded at Grove Farm, Yet we have had major flooding at Wallacia corresponding with the release of water from the existing Warragamba Dam and seeing the catchments of the Nepean and Burragorang catchments are in the same region and when the proposed modified Warragamba Dam spills it will be at a controlled rate for a much longer time how will this affect the Nepean River backwater flooding at Wallacia, I could not see in the EIS where this has been calculated to give an approximate flood level expected at the village of Wallacia in a 1% AEP event, this could cause changes in local Council Flood plans for future developments.

To whom it may concern,
• 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.
Gundungurra Traditional Owners have not given their free, prior and informed consent.
• 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.
• If the State Government are wanting to 'embed ancient Indigenous knowledge' (Turnbull, 2018) into its plans for Western Sydney then they better make sure they don't destroy it all in the process.
The Warragamba Dam wall raising proposal is a developer driven scam. We might well wonder who is really running this state? Urban Task Force and the developer interests it repesents or the people. The People SAY NO TO THIS PROJECT. Unequicocally NO.

To whom it may concern,
I reject the proposal for raising Warragamba's walls for the impact it will cause to a World Heritage listed site and threatened species.

I request that the NSW government reject the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam Wall for the following reasons showing fundamental faults in the decision making process that render it invalid and negligent. 1.1 absolute failure to consider the public safety issue of catastrophic dam wall collapse because of the age, concrete condition and geological features associated with the wall construction (decades ago) of a dam for water supply. That is, it now proposed to modify the dam wall to increase water retention for "flood mitigation" from a potentially very dangerous and poor quality starting point and increase an already high public risk of dam wall failure. This is foreseeable and potentially criminally negligent. See past reports of Dam Safety Committee. 1.2. failure to properly consider the 45% + sources of floodwater in the Hawkesbury river catchment and alternates for management of the floodplain issue. This is potentially criminally negligent. 1.3. failure to consider the ongoing flood risks to existing and new developments even if the dam wall is raised, including the need to "spill" more water in times of high rainfall. This is despite the insurance industry's clear alerts and will also potentially grounds negligence. 1.4. Failure to take into account the clear statements by the NSW Minister Stuart Ayres of the intention to raise the dam wall for other highly relevant purposes and actively supporting further residential development on the floodplain below the dam wall development; recent proposals by Minister Stokes to facilitate commercial development on the floodplain; the ongoing development of and surrounding Badgery Creek airport, including land based transport infrastructure on and into the floodplain. 1.5 failure to provide any viable business case for the proposal, particularly as to costs and funding. 1.6 failure to provide any alternates or proper costings. 1.7. the proposal prevents the NSW state governments own latest bio diversity legal protection proposals for carbon offsets in the national parks; the vegetation to ground this will be destroyed in the new flood zone. 2. deliberate attempted misuse of an archeological survey and failure to even adequately take into account the impact of the proposal on indigenous cultural and natural heritage sites throughout the area impacted behind the dam wall. There has not even been an adequate assessment of what is proposed to be destroyed and this makes a mockery of government statements of even consultation with our indigenous Australians who are part of the oldest living culture on the planet. Shame on you NSW state government. This is unceded aboriginal land and the custodians have objected in the strongest terms with the limited legal protections available to them. There has not been any proper assessment of the impact and there has been major issues identified with the process conducted that renders the whole thing invalid. They have had no opportunity in the past to object when the wall was constructed and later raised. This is there first and only opportunity and they are being deliberately it seems ignored. Shame on you NSW state government. 3. totally inadequate consideration of the international and national environment protection law in the environmental impact statement completed, particularly in the proposal that partial periodic and intermittant inundation and flooding of valleys will have no lasting impact. Any view of the water peak lines behind the existing wall shows the total destruction and devastation of the land and vegitation. It is an outright lie to claim otherwise in light of the visual evidence. 4. absolute inadequate if not negligent failure to consider the impact of the proposal on the last remaining wild river and biodiversity- vegetation, habitat, animals and birdlife (endangered and otherwise)- behind the existing dam wall, particularly in the context of the damage done in the world heritage and national protected national park by the 2020-21 bushfires. Shame on you NSW state government.

To whom it may concern,
I want my name withheld from publishing the submission online.
It would be a tragedy for the Blue Mountains if there was a raising of the walls for Warragamba dam.
The area to be impacted is World Heritage. That is sufficient evidence of special values to be conserved against this proposal. I place a higher weight on environmental values than the current NSW government, who find it all too easy to justify any destruction of environment on the basis of higher economic objectives. With such a biased weighting scale, there are no environmental constraints on development, and all environmental values are under jeopardy.
I do not believe offsets of the environmental values to be lost are sufficient. For instance, I walk along the Kowmung, and it is unique. I will not enjoy walking along any offset set out somewhere else, knowing what was lost.
I have little confidence in an environmental and cultural assessment being conducted by SMEC Engineering, with its poor reputation.
There is no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising- this is a glaring omission.
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.
There are many alternative options instead of raising the Warragamba Dam wall, which would still protect existing floodplain communities. These other options have 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.
The ongoing flood risk of existing and newly built areas in Sydney's west is a serious concern. Climate change is contributing to that flood risk, as sea levels raise. Flood risk is a constraint on development, which must be heeded, and I am against building in flood prone areas. World's best practise is building outside the 1 in 500 flood event.
NSW Government is planning to allow an additional 134,000 people to reside on the Western Sydney floodplain after the dam is raised.
The environment must not suffer costs due to ill-guided government decisions to approve housing development where it should not be. Government should instead find other solutions that do not cause irreparable damage to world heritage values. Those other solutions exist, accordingly this development proposal is ill-conceived and should be rejected.
In the end, I regularly go hiking along the Kowmung river and am shocked that this magnificent and wild river is proposed to be impacted (65km of wilderness rivers will be).

To whom it may concern,
The Blue Mountains are Iconic and we need all the trees we can have to replenish atmospheric oxygen, so don't flood more of the Blue Mountains.

I am against the raising of the walls for Warragamba dam.
1. I regularly go hiking along the Kowmung river and am shocked that this Wild River is proposed to be impacted (65km of wilderness rivers will be).
2. The area to be impacted is World Heritage- that is sufficient evidence of special values to be conserved against this proposal. Even if there were a high level of ecomonic and social benefits that can only be achieved by this proposal (which I do not accept because there are alternatives that provide those benefits), I would still be against the proposal. As a citizen, I place a higher weight on environmental values than the current NSW government, who find it all too easy to justify any destruction of environment on the basis of higher economic objectives. With such a biased weighting scale, there are no environmental constraints on development, and all environmental values are under jeopardy.
3. I do not beleive offsets of the environmental values to be lost are sufficient. For instance, I walk along the Kowmung, and it is unique. I will not enjoy walking along any offset set out somewhere else, knowing what was lost.
4. I have little confidence in an environmental and cultural assessment being conducted by SMEC Engineering, with its poor reputation.
5. There is no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of the dam wall raising- this is a glaring omission.
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.
There are many alternative options instead of raising the Warragamba Dam wall, which would still protect existing floodplain communities. These other options have 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.
6. The ongoing flood risk of existing and newly built areas in Sydney's west is a serious concern. Climate change is contributing to that flood risk, as sea levels raise. Flood risk is a constraint on development, which must be heeded, and I am against building in flood prone areas. The environment must not suffer costs due to ill-guided government decisions to approve housing development where it should not be. Government should instead find other solutions that do not cause irreparable damage to world heritage values. Those other solutions exist, accordindly this development proposal is ill-conceived and should be rejected.

To whom it may concern,
I personally oppose the raising of the dam given the facts that several state agencies recommend that the plan be revisited and that the current plan has failed to address many issues in relation to first nations people sites, endangered species and even the necessity of doing so in the first place.
Raising the dam(n) wall should be a very last resort but we all know that we waste precious water on a daily basis at an alarming rate. Before we raise the wall and destroy ecosystems and the playground for many Sydney siders we should thorougly invest into ensuring that water isn't wasted both commercially or in residential application.
Efficiency and optimisation before brute force and in this case the planning has been hapazard and basic. This should be addressed before any decision is made or approvals to commence work is granted.

To whom it may concern,
Leave Warragamba as it is.
There are many reasons, from experienced scientists who advise against raising the wall.
Just leave it alone.
There are better things to do with the money:
Hospitals, schools, environmental protection etc.
You get it right?