To whom it may concern,
I have been a Blue Mountains resident since 1981 and know how privileged I am to live in such a beautiful place.
I am active in community, social and environmental protection groups and live ASAP = As Sustainably As Possible, in every way I can. So I'm used to thinking about my personal impact on the environment.
I oppose the raising of the level of the Warragamba Dam because of the obvious destructive impact it would have on the environment - the river, the plant and animal species, and the sacred indigenous sites, whose custodians, the Gundungurra, have not been fully consulted.
We waste a helluva lot of water these days. We take it for granted, which is very foolish. By learning to live now with what we've already got, without adding to the destruction we've already caused, we will be doing our children, and future generations, a big favour.

To whom it may concern,
Raising the height of the Warragamba Dam would have immense and long lasting impacts on our iconic world heritage area. Please consider the information in the link below and stop with this plan.
theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/29/nsw-governments-assessment-of-raising-warragamba-dam-wall-totally-inadequate-critics-say

To whom it may concern,
5 December 2021
Submission re. Raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall
To Whom it may concern,
I wish to register my strong opposition to the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam wall.
I live in the Blue Mountains and have walked extensively throughout the areas that constitute the Lake Burragorang catchment areas over the last 35years or so. I know the rivers that will be affected by this proposal, having walked many of them including the Nattai, Wollondilly, The Kowmung and Cox’s, Kedumba and many of their tributaries. These are magical places, in most instances looking much as they did before “white fella’s” invaded these lands.
I think most people familiar with the Greater Blue Mountains National Park thought World Heritage listing would finally protect it from any potential development threats. Sadly, we were mistaken. It was perhaps naive to think the value of a pristine World Heritage listed NP would take precedence over the potential financial profits from developing the vast floodplain of the Nepean River. Evidence to that intention was clearly expressed by the minister for Western Sydney and now Deputy Premier, Stuart Ayres in a Channel Nine interview some time ago and more recently confirmed by The Emergency Services Minister, David Elliot in a Triple M radio interview. It’s no secret that the Development lobby is hard at work encouraging the approval and completion of the project as soon as possible.
Housing development should not occur on flood plains and no amount of dam building will ever provide a safe environment. The insurance industry knows that and it’s inevitable that housing on the floodplain will become uninsurable at some point in the future, particularly in the Penrith Lakes area.
It’s estimated that more than 45% of floodwater originates outside the areas upstream of the Warragamba Dam. Clearly, whilst reducing the frequency of flooding in the Penrith area it won’t prevent it and has little effect on areas downstream.
The NSW government plans to almost double the population of the Hawkesbury Nepean flood plain by 2050. Presumably most of the development will occur on land above the 1% flood level, however, far larger floods have been recorded historically and it’s inevitable that they will occur again. Raising the Warragamba dam wall won’t prevent flooding and the likely increase in population will inevitably result in far greater carnage than would currently occur.
Environmental Impact Statement
The engineering company chosen to undertake the EIS into cultural and environmental values, SMEC Engineering, has a consistent record around the world of abusing indigenous culture and disregarding environmental constraints in the interest of providing clients with advice to suit their intentions. I’m sure details of the company have been revealed in other submissions, so I won’t waste my time elaborating.
A draft of a 2019 EIS obtained by the ABC shows quite clearly that many of the initial conclusions noted by the lead ecologist at the time, Rachel Musgrave, have subsequently undergone significant changes. In the September 2019 draft EIS, all likely damage from upstream inundation was considered to be a direct consequence of raising the dam wall. The ecologist responsible for the report found that:
Up to half the remaining critically endangered Regent Honeyeater population would likely be impacted.
28 species of threatened animals, including 9 mammals and thousands of hectares of threatened ecological communities.
The ecologist estimated the cost of providing suitable environmental offsets at 2.88 billion dollars.
The final EIS now considers all upstream impacts to be “off site” and therefore indirect consequences of the project. That is clearly ridiculous, as the locations to eventually suffer inundation and therefore ecological collapse are known precisely and compensation should not be left for a future and hopefully, more responsible government to pay.
The extent of occasional inundation of the pristine wild rivers and streams flowing into Lake Burragorang will effectively destroy around 65 km’s of highly significant streamside vegetation and inevitably replace it with invasive weeds.
A second ecologist, Ross Crates, an expert on the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater found 21 birds and 7 nests during a survey of around 20% of the proposed impact site. Considering the estimated population is only around 350 birds left in the wild, this represents almost a third of the entire population.
The environmental consequences of this proposal are appalling and are indicative of the governments complete disregard for nature conservation in NSW.
Aboriginal Cultural heritage
The NSW government has refused to seek consent from the traditional owners, the Gundungurra People and little attempt has been made to survey the area. Only 25% of the site has been surveyed and that alone found more than 300 cultural sites.
I thoroughly object to the proposed raising of the Warragmba Dam. There are several alternative options and they should be persued.

Please do not allow Warragmba to be raised as it's too environmentally damaging.

To whom it may concern,
I oppose to the decision to raising the warragamba dam wall.

To whom it may concern,
Please don't destroy our natural heritage. This is a beautiful place, full of crutial habitat and cultural sites. It should not be destroyed. We are the custodians of this land for future generations. We need to protect it. Once it is gone, it is gone forever and the consequences are for reaching.
I understand that Sydney needs water, but we can ensure future water supply by managing the water we currently have by, for example, changing habits and reusing waste water. Invest in these long term, sustainable strategies rather than short term, profit driven 'fixes'.
Our govenment has a responsibility to preserve this area for future generations. Raising the dam wall is irresponsible and, in my opinion, criminal!

To whom it may concern,
Australians are sick of corrupt governments making dodgy deals with property developers. Moving more people onto flood plains is a recipe for disaster with or without a bigger dam. We may as well all move on to the slopes of volcanos and complain when they erupt.
The planet is made up a of an intricate system of ecological processes and thinking we can control them all is arrogant and pernicious. This is especially so if our attempts to lord ourselves over nature means destroying swathes of unique and valuable lands along with the varietal species that call them home.

The Blue Mountains were only recently ravaged by the worst bushfires we have ever seen, and considering the way the climate is going we are going to have to fight to maintain the integrity of the region to allow it to recover and withstand future threats.
We are talking about a region that is the only home to prehistoric Wollemi Pines, along with many other threatened species. The mostly untouched wild areas of the Blue Mountains likely hold other undescribed or undiscovered species, which could be wiped from the face of the earth in one fell swoop - and all because a handful of amoral tycoons want to make fistfuls of cash while their back room colleagues are still holding the reigns of government.
This is a case of ecocide, and if the dam wall is raised all involved in letting it happen should be drowned upstream along with the countless flora, fauna and fungi for which they signed the death warrant.

To whom it may concern,
A few points:
• 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.
• 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.

To whom it may concern,
I live in Sydney and visit the Blue Mountains often, I'm in awe of its natural beauty and what it represents in terms of the indigenous history.
There are many reasons why the Warragamba Dam Wall should NOT be increased, but the most important ones are:
- areas like the Blue Mountains have been listed as World Heritage and we are the custodians of this magnificent area. We are not entitled to shave off pieces of it when it suits us. When species of flora and fauna are being made extinct (by humans) at an ever accelerated rate, we must find ways to move in the other direction.
- both the Heritage Assessment Report and the EIS are deficient in many aspects. They should not be relied upon by the Minister for future decisions about the wall. Some of the deficiencies are:
No Post Bushfire update after a significant impact on the Blue Mountains NP; less than 30% of the Aboriginal Cultural sites were included; No modelling on the flood plan or the economic benefits; various threatened species would be affected such as the Grassy Box Woodland and Regent Honey Eater; etc
- around 45% of the flooding comes from upstream areas outside the Dam catchment. Even if the wall is raised it will not protect the downstream communities.
- although many options are available as alternative solutions that would provide similar or better protection for the flood plain communities, they were not comprehensively reviewed or assessed in the EIS.
For these and many more reasons I object to the raising of the dam wall.