To whom it may concern,
Submission re project no. SSI-8441- re raising Warragamba Dam Wall

I am Margaret Potts and I live in Wentworth Falls in the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritager Area, and this is a great privilege. I have chosen to move here from the inner Western suburbs on my retirement. I wished to be able to access more easily the walks, the flora and fauna in this wonderful area. I was fortunate as a child the my parents brought us to the Blue Mountains for holidays and day trips. They shared with us the joy of walking in the National Park, and of understanding our environment.And I have continued these activities all my life with great pleasure.
I object to the raising of the wall of Warragamba Dam for the following reasons.
1. The damage that would be done to the Greater Blue Mountains Heritage Area by the higher water levels, even if the submerging of country is not permanent.
The denuding effects of dammed water on the usually submerged environment have been seen when the water levels are low in the current dam. Raising the dam wall will increase markedly the area inundated,even if only for several weeks, and hence, more denudation upstream from current water levels. This will involve wilderness areas and 'wild rivers' such as the Kowmung. The Kowmung has been protected for its pristine condition under the National Parks and Wildlife Act since 1974
Inundation above current non drought levels will drown habitat for critically endangered Regent Honeyeaters, Koala colonies and Sydney's last Emu population.
Apparently a very short time, such as 3.5 hours, was spent by assessors searching for Koalas, and perhaps a day assessing the impacts to aquatic life, including the threatened Platypus.These are incredibly short times for assessing inconspicuous fauna.
Unique eucalyptus species diversity recocnised under the World Heritage listing, and a number of threatened ecological communities, notably Grassy Box Woodland will be inundated with raising the dam wall.
Not only have the Gundungurra Traditional Owners not given free, prior and informed consent for the dam proposal to proceed, but over 1541 identiefied cultural heritage sites would be inundated by the Dam proposal
Such damage will threaten our World Heritage status with the damage to natural and cultural values. The area's World Heritage status is a strong drawcard for tourism to the area, and very important for all the above reasons to the people fortunate to live in and value this environment.
2. The water draining to Warragamba Dam is only part of the cause of flooding in the Hawkesbury- Nepean floodplain.The Grose and the Colo are signiificant contributors to the flooding. And with climate change, more storms, and hence more flooding will occur.
Other ways of defusing the flooding issues could include a decrease by, eg ,12 m would free airspace for flood control. Water recycling and desalination plants could increase Sydney's water security.
People's lives and property damage due to floods could be prevented by not placing housing and hence people in extremely flood prone areas, such as floodplains.

I would urge that the Dam wall not be raised for the above reasons.
Additionally,this project going ahead would undermine the legislation which is the foundation of environment protection in N.S.W. Approval of the project would set a dangerous precedent for Australia's World Heritage and National Park protections.

To whom it may concern,
Im an avid bushwalker and lover of what is left of our natural environment. It would be devastating and irresponsible to endanger or destroy such a natural wonder.
There are 80 known species of threatened flora and fauna at and upstream of Warragamba Dam. The inundation of national parkland and part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, for at least two weeks at a time, will have significant detrimental impacts on threatened species. This includes two critically endangered ecological communities being the White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland, and the Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. Threatened animals that will be impacted include the endangered Macquarie perch and the critically endangered regent honeyeater. Fewer than 400 mature regent honeyeaters remain in the wild. It is a species on the brink of extinction.
At the World Heritage Committee Meeting held in Azerbaijan in 2019 the UNESCO World Heritage Committee stated “the inundation of areas within the property resulting from the raising of the dam wall are likely to have an impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property”. In 2018, Ian Travers then president of Australia ICOMOS stated the raising of the dam had the potential to place the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area on the World Heritage Committee’s List of World Heritage in Danger.

Adverse Impacts
• Fragments and degrades two World Heritage list wilderness national parks
• Degrades world famous scenery of the southern Blue Mountains
• Reduces rare biodiversity, including 40% of the Nationally threatened Camden White Gum forest
• Aboriginal cultural heritage destroyed
• Loss of classic bushwalking areas, historic campsites drowned and access restricted
• Further urban sprawl on the floodplain and degradation to the Hawkesbury-Nepean River.
A better solution is to lower the full supply level for flood mitigation. This provides most of the benefits of the proposed dam wall raising and respects our international obligations to protect World Heritage.

To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the proposed raising of the Warragamba Dam Wall. I have lived in Western Sydney for 65 years and during that time have regularly visited various part of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area.
Some, but not limited to, reasons why I oppose the proposal:
• Failure to properly and respectfully meet and engage with the Aboriginal Traditional Custodians.
• Failure to recognise and protect Aboriginal Cultural sites.
The Commonwealth Department of the International Council of Monuments and Sites have both stated very serious failings in the assessment of the impact on the cultural heritage of the Gundungurra Traditional Owners.
• Failure to protect endangered and critically endangered biodiversity and their habitat.
The irreversible impacts, include but are not limited to;
• Current Lake Surface Area - 7,300ha
• New Lake Surface Area - 12,300ha
• Wilderness Area Destroyed - 1,800ha
• World Heritage Submerged - 1,000ha
• National Parks Lost - 4,700ha
Flawed EIS
• The EIS does not pass the ‘pub test’ with sections of the original EIS omitted and facts and figures seemingly altered to provide an ‘enhanced’ picture for the proponents aims.
• Why would an EIS need to be altered unless there are facts that are not being provided to the Public? Surely this negates the ‘modified’ EIS? Clearly in the interest of the community the full, unaltered EIS as provided by the Consultants engaged to conduct it should be made available to the Public.
• It should also be noted that the biodiversity and cultural surveys were undertaken prior to the 2019/20 bushfires which burnt 81% of the Greater Blue Mountains. To gain a true picture of the current biodiversity and cultural status a new EIS should be commissioned before any decision is reached.

Failure to provide intergenerational equity
Future generations should be assured of intergenerational equity and not be ‘robbed’ of their rights to experience what the previous and current generations have enjoyed.
Aboriginal Culture and Cultural Sites should be conserved and given the highest protection possible so that future generations can learn about Aboriginal culture from Aboriginal Australians.
The GBMWHA should be given the highest protection possible by the present generation to ensure World Heritage status is never put at risk of being lost.

My research indicates there is a great deal of opposition from many, including but not limited to, Aboriginal Traditional Owners and people, other sectors such as the Insurance sector, politicians, local Councils, many conservation groups and a large number of the general Public.
So why is there so much opposition by such broad sectors of the Community?
Who is going to gain mainly for the raising of the Dam Wall? Developers? Some Politicians?
Have other options to reduce the impact of major floods been fully investigated?
This ‘solution’ to the flooding issues is near sighted and poorly researched with the long term effects being ignored or minimised. Irreversible damage and loss will occur and the risk of losing World Heritage status is real.
I support the submissions of the Colong Foundation for Wilderness, National Parks Association of NSW, Blue Mountains Conservation Society and all Aboriginal organisations and individuals opposing the raising of the dam wall.

I oppose the proposal and the inadequate EIS for many reasons including those stated below.
• An average 45% of floodwaters into the Nepean-Hawkesury come from areas outside of the tributaries upstream of Warragamba Dam. So a higher dam wall will not prevent flooding downstream in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley but will create a false sense of security for people living on the flood plains.
• The plans of Minister Stuart Ayres to build homes for 134,000 more people on the floodplains on the basis that they will now be safe is, in my view, criminally irresponsible.
• The flood plains should not be developed as they are critical to our food security and the region’s ecological health. It is utter madness on the most arid continent on Earth to build suburbia on our best agricultural land which requires flooding for its rejuvenation.
• The government needs to stop all further development and improve drastically its evacuation routes and strategies.
• Up to 65 Kilometres of wild rivers, and 5,700 hectares of National Parks, including 1,300 hectares of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, will be flooded by the Dam project. This includes the Kowmung River declared a ‘Wild River’ under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974; unique eucalyptus species diversity which was the primary reason for the Blue Mountains’ World Heritage listing; 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.
• Only 27% of the impacted area was assessed for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage. The Gundungurra community, whose Country this is, are implacably opposed to the destruction of more of their heritage and of the natural environment by the raising of the dam wall.
• Where is the modelling in the EIS of the flood and economic benefits of the dam wall?
• The threatened species surveys do not meet the standard requirements. Field surveys were not all completed, and expert reports were not obtained.
• Snowy Mountains Engineering Company (SMEC) that undertook the EIS was bought by Singapore-based Surbana Jurong in 2016. In 2017, the World Bank imposed sanctions on subsidiaries of the SMEC after an investigation into corporate misconduct. Why should we have any confidence in the work of this foreign-owned company with an appalling governance record.
• In 2020, Australia’s biggest insurer, Insurance Australia Group (IAG) AGM withdrew its support for raising the Warragamba Dam wall.

To whom it may concern,world heritage sites must be protected from damage for now and the future for all people to enjoy especially the indigenous owners whose rights must be respected.

My partner and I are avid bushwalkers who frequent areas that would be affected if the dam wall was raised, like the kedumba valley which is rich in ancient and modern history. Also it has a raft of wildlife including platypus. Since the last fires over 80% of the blue mountains national Park have been affected. It should be left alone. It has been named a world heritage site for a very good reason.