To whom it may concern,
I have been a resident of the Blue Mountains for 45 years and a regular buswalker/camper. I have a strong commitment to maintaining the unique and hard earned UNESCO World Heritage Listing for the BM.
The vast majority of NSW has been cleared for farming, mining and human settlement.
In 2021 its about time governements took a leadership role in protecting what is left of our unique environment and indigenous cultural heritage.
The Blue Mountains environment is precious to all Australians and it is world renowned. It's our Frankland River.
The environment and indigenous culture heritage in NSW has overall played second fiddle for far to long. We need clever strategic leadership.
The experts are saying that raising the dam won't solve the flooding down stream and there are alternatives for flood plain management.
Listen to the experts for once because there are no alernatives once this precious asset is compromised.
It's time that governements put a true value of our scant remaining environmental and cultural 'capital'.
You can pull down football stadiums and rebuild them but you can't replace the unique wild environment and cultural heritage of the BM once it is compromised and destroyed.
Leave this treasure for generations to come, they will thank you for it.

To whom it may concern,
Please oppose the application to extend the dam wall. The destruction of natural habitat and historical sites is unconscionable and not justified by the desire to extend the land usable for building more houses for humans.

To whom it may concern,
Please oppose the application to extend the dam wall. The destruction of natural habitat and historical sites is unconscionable and not justified by the desire to extend the land usable for building more houses for humans.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my outrage at the NSW government's proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall.
I have lived in the Blue Mountains for the past 20+ years and feel so fortunate to be able enjoy the unique and beautiful natural environment all around me.
I am shocked to realise housing development on the flood plain should be more important to this government than the unique values of our World Heritage National Park. I do NOT want to see the inundation of bushland and animal and bird habitat. I do NOT want to see the inundation of 1500 indigenous cultural heritage sites.
I DO want the government to respect the world heritage status of the area under threat. I DO want the habitat of threatened species like koalas, regent honey eaters and the last local emu populations to be valued, protected and respected.
I am a voter and I say NO to raising of the dam wall and NO to more housing on the flood plain.

To whom it may concern,
Please consider environmental consequences when providing state planning decisions. Dams are not the only answer. Better water management and better decisions about catchment areas and managing run off are some of the issues to consider. We will run out of wild and beautiful places and they are more valuable than asking citizens to have a shorter shower.

To whom it may concern,
I am most concerned about the proposal to raise the Warragamba dam wall. I reside in the Blue Mountains and my workplace is on the Hawkesbury flood plain.
This proposal concerns me for four reasons:
1. The project appears unlikely to meet stated goal, to reduce flood impacts in the Hawkesbury area. Warragamba is only one source of flood waters, with major flows coming from the Nepean and Grose Rivers. I understand the 2021 floods would not have been prevented by raising the wall.
2. The proposed destruction of protected wilderness area is difficult to comprehend. What does protection mean if it is not actually protected? Kedumba river is one of my favourite Blue Mountains camp sites, and would be lost if the wall raising were to go ahead.
3. The slap-dash approach to studing in the impacts of the wall raising are inexcusable. Inadequate in the field studies - just 3.5 hours looking for koalas in a vast area - to name just one aspect. It has the appearance of vested interests raming things through.
3. Given the destruction and low benefits, the project appears to be a waste of public money. The same funds would be better spent in other ways to provide flood escape routes and move infastructure out of flood impact zones.
I am against the wall raising for the above reasons.

To whom it may concern,
As an ecologist, I strongly oppose the plans to raise Warragamba Dam. Raising Warragamba dam would have distastrous environmental impacts, including a double destruction of habitat upstream and downstream of the dam. Upstream, areas would be flooded, killing large areas of forest and destroying lots of important terrestrial habitat. Rivers would become too deep for many existing aquatic plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, etc., causing losses in these populations. Downstream, areas would be even further depleted of water, causing stress for vegetation, especially under future droughts, and reducing habitat and feeding opportunities for animals, such as waterbirds.

We are at a time of massive anthropogenic impacts on the environment, with more than half of most ecosystem types being destroyed, a mass extinction event occuring and all these impacts being exacerbated by current and future climate change impacts. Right now, we need to solve future water shortage issues by investing in new technologies, such as water recycling, rather than further taking from our limited natural resources and threatening our beautiful environment.

I hope that you consider these environmental impacts and instead of raising the dam, decide to make future-focused plans, working with the water we already have, rather than further taking from nature.

To whom it may concern,

I am opposed to the raising of Warragamaba Dam Wall.
I hold this view because the very reason for having to raise the dam is because of too much residential development downstream on flood-prone land which has caused the problem. The dam is not at fault.
It is greedy developers and agreeable councils who are at fault.
Raisig the dam wall will cause occasional flooding of shores and creek upstream of the dam and within the national park. This defies the very reasons for having a national park.

To whom it may concern,
[email protected]
Submission – Warragamba Dam Raising Project – SSI8441 – Mark Openshaw, Blackheath NSW 2785
I object to the proposal.
• There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
• The proposal will have major negative impacts on the Blue Mountains National Park, its fauna and flora, aboriginal heritage sites, and the UNESCO World Heritage Listing
• The traditional owners have not given their consent to the proposal
• The proposal will not meet its stated aim of protecting properties built on the floodplain
• The proposal is inconsistent with environmental protection legislation in NSW. Approval of the proposal would set a dangerous precedent for NSW’s national park and threatened species protections, and for Australia’s World Heritage protections.
I have not made any reportable political donations in the previous two years.
I live in the Blue Mountains and regularly bush walk in the Blue Mountains National Park. I know many people employed in the tourism sector in this area. Their jobs depend on a protected environment and compliance with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention. I submit that the Minister should bear in mind the following when considering whether to approve the raising of the dam wall.

There are serious deficiencies in the Environmental Impact Statement
The severe fires during the 2019-20 summer devastated 81 per cent of the Blue Mountains Heritage Area. Despite the widespread acknowledgement throughout the community that the fires caused enormous loss of life to fauna and flora, the EIS includes no post-bushfire field surveys. This is seriously inadequate.
Threatened species surveys are substantially less than guideline requirements. Where field surveys were not adequately completed, expert reports were not obtained. This is inadequate.
The assessment is based on just 3.5 hours looking for koalas and just one day assessing the impacts on aquatic life, including the threatened platypus. This is inadequate.
Only 27% of the area to be impacted by the proposal was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The author of the cultural heritage assessment spent just one day in the field.
SMEC Engineering, which undertook the proposal’s environmental and cultural assessments, has a poor record of working with indigenous people and has been banned from working on World Bank projects in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
The EIS contains no modelling of the stated flood and economic benefits of raising the dam wall.
The EIS considers that only 7.5 metres of the proposed 17 metre increase in the height of the dam wall will result in impacts upstream. This assumption is clearly unrelated to reality. The entire 17 metres should have been included in the assessment of the impacted area.
The proposal will negatively impact the World Heritage listing
The Blue Mountains World Heritage area was inscribed on UNESCO’s World Heritage list in recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind. The proposal will result in flooding of part of the area subject to World Heritage listing. The flooding will cause damage to natural and cultural values. The proposal therefore constitutes a breach of the undertakings made by both the NSW and Australian Governments and Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
The proposal will flood 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, including:
• the Kowmung River - declared a ‘Wild River’ and protected 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, koala colonies and Sydney’s last Emu population.
The traditional owners have not given consent to the proposal
The Australian Government has estimated that the proposal will flood more than 1541 identified cultural heritage sites.
The Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) have both crticised the quality of the proponent’s Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report for not appropriately assessing cultural heritage in meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community members.
The proposal will not protect properties built on the floodplain
On average, 45% of floodwaters derive from areas outside the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment. No matter how high the dam wall is, it will not be able to prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream as the dam wall will not impact floodwater coming down the Nepean River or the Colo River or other streams.
There are alternative options to raising the Warragamba Dam wall that would protect floodplain communities, including levees, new flood evacuation routes, and reducing floodplain development. The EIS does not comprehensively assess alternative options.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing this due to my concern and appreaciation of the Blue Mountains as a World Heritage area, and the impact a large dam will have on land and habitat.
The areas surrounding the Warragamba Dam Raising project, are the flood plains whch are incredibly important as it places the natural habitat, birds and other species which rely on the flood plains and water ways, which are a valuble part of the beauty of the area and an important site for many rare native which live and and breed in the area.
I understand that over 1541 identified cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam if built, and this goes against The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report, the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). There needs to be inclusion to appropriately assess cultural heritage with meaningful consultation with Gundungurra community memers and community.
The Blue Mountains are described as an "Outstanding Universal Value for the whole of mankind", (see the 2000 - UNESCO's World Heritage list). Australias obligation to honour the World Heritage Convention is paramount, The Blue Mountains Kowmung River with the unique eucaluptus diversity, threatened ecological communities, notable Grassy Box Wooland; and the endangered and critically endangered spiceis including the Critically Endangered Regent Honeyeater and Sydney's last Emu population.
Political and corporate agendas need to include all aspects of the project (the hightening of the damm), environmental, community, cultural elders/community, the risks and consequeces to the environment, including both the short and long term impacts on habitat and wildlife.