To whom it may concern,
I don't want to see bush heritage decimated for a land-grab. There are too many reasons for saving this river, and not inundating precious emu habitat and land with clear aboriginal significance. The trees and shrubs will die, or be damaged beyond repair. Invasive weeds could proliferate. Itsy not a sound option to protect the wilderness, and fauna.

To whom it may concern,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
I am a conservationist and bushwalker who has visited the wilderness of the southern Blue Mountains including the Kowmung River and would like to do so again.
Consequently I am totally opposed to any proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall as it would allow much of this precious area to be occasionally flooded and permanently degraded.
The proposal ignores the fact that these areas already have multiple layers of legal protection including national park, wilderness, special catchment and national and world heritage status. I understand that 65 kms of wild rivers and 5,700 hectares of national park including 1,300 hectares of world heritage area are directly threatened by the project.
Allowing this proposal would make a mockery of these laws and regulations and set a disastrous precedent for the future of other areas that are supposedly protected by these provisions. In addition it would represent a clear breach of Australia's obligations to protect natural and cultural values under the World Heritage Convention.
I am very concerned about the potential adverse impacts of the project on up to 48 threatened flora and fauna species living upstream of the dam including the endangered Kowmung Hakea and Regent Honeyeater and the vulnerable Camden White Gum. Not to mention the threat it poses to Threatened Ecological Communities such as Grassy Box Woodland.
Of course it is vital to have measures in place to prevent the loss of life and property when the Hawkesbury Nepean system floods. However raising the dam wall is a poor solution to this problem.
A combination of alternative flood mitigation measures would be equally effective without the disastrous environmental impacts of the current proposal.
These include lowering the full water storage level of the dam, constructing levees and evacuation roads and relocating residents most at risk.
If carefully planned, these alternatives could be achieved without the expenses of construction and biodiversity offsets pertaining to the current project.
If this project is completed it is likely to instill a false sense of security in current and potential residents of the areas downstream of the dam. It will not prevent future flooding of the Hawkesbury Nepean valley as an average of 45% of floodwaters come from areas outside of the Warragamba Dam catchment anyway.
Given Sydney's population growth there is a real risk that the proposal will put even more people in danger if Infrastructure NSW has its way and allows 134,000 more people to move into the floodplain.
NSW should not continue to have planning regulations that allow people to be housed in flood prone areas below the 1:500 year limit. This is the real problem that needs to be addressed.
I hope that you will give my submission favourable consideration.

To whom it may concern,
I write with great concern about the proposal to raise the height of Warragamba Dam.
I've hiked for years in the Kowmung area and it has a character and biodiversity not found elsewhere in the blue mountains. There is no faking it elsewhere- it will be gone for good.
While it is a "quick fix" to increasing water supply and flood risk, both of these problems can be dealt with in other ways. We already have an underutilised desalination plant. And we could be reclaiming grey water for more efficient reuse.
As for flood risk, 45% of floodwaters are derived from areas outside of the upstream Warragamba Dam catchment., so a higher dam will not prevent flooding in the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley downstream.
Rezoning of the valley downstream for housing should not be a reason to destroy the unique natural resource. Sydney is sprawling enough- it needs to go higher not wider.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I object to the proposed raising of Warragamba Dam.

I do so for the following reason:

1. The World Heritage listing of the Blue Mountains National Parks is recognition of the area’s extraordinary biodiversity and ecological integrity.
2. The actual extent and severity of the impacts on areas declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and that are World Heritage listed are unacceptable and would amount to ecological vandalism. Approximately, 5,700 ha of NPWS’ reserves, 1,300 ha of World Heritage Area and 65 km of wild rivers would be irreparably impacted.
3. The ecological surveys supporting the EIS are inadequate and the extent and severity of the impacts on the environment are underestimated. This is partly because the EIS misrepresents the spatial and temporal extent of the inundation that would occur. Further, no additional ecological surveys were done after the devasting 2019-2020 fires and the survey methodology for threatened species and threatened ecological communities does not meet applicable requirements.
4. It is likely that NSW’ most threatened bird, the Regent Honeyeater, would go extinct if the proposal were to proceed due to destruction of its habitat.
5. Due to the problems with the assessment of the ecological impacts, any calculation of biodiversity offset for the proposal based on information in the EIS would be flawed. In fact, there is no calculation of the biodiversity offset.
6. Surveys for cultural heritage are inadequate being conducted in approximately 25% of the area to be impacted. Those surveys, which have conducted, have identified that more than 1500 Aboriginal cultural heritage sites that would be destroyed. The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report has been criticised by both the Australian Department of Environment and the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), including, for lack of proper consultation with the traditional owners.
7. The EIS overinflates the reduction in flooding of downstream areas that raising the dam wall would deliver. Raising the dam wall would not eliminate significant risk of flooding of downstream flood prone areas. Almost 50% of floodwaters that flood the floodplain do not come from upstream of Warragamba Dam. Accordingly, significantly increasing development on the floodplain would potentially increase the number of people and amount of property at risk of harm during floods.
8. Flooding from Wivenhoe Dam and the Ross River Dam highlight that using a dam for both water storage and flood mitigation can go disastrously wrong.
9. The EIS does not present alternatives to raising the dam wall.
10. I have bushwalked in this area and I am appalled that future generations may not be able to do so.

To whom it may concern,
I am fearful at the lack of governance by the NSW Government over many years with respect to flood plain land use planning.
The logic provided to justify the raising of the dam wall is predicated on the continual failure to govern appropriate land use of the flood plain. There is no evidence this ongoing failure to govern land use will not go on and on, such that when the dam wall is raised, the next edition of flood risk maps will show much larger areas within the current flood plain no longer subject to 1 in 100 year flooding and therefore allowing ongoing totally inappropriate land use.
I am fearful at the lack of governance by the NSW government that has been displayed in the production of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the raising of the Warragamba Dam wall. The process for producing this EIS has been proven to be severely tainted with wholesale downgrading or just plain disregard of upstream impacts when evaluating “costs”.
I was sickened by the disaster at Juukan Gorge, a disaster that would not have occurred with proper governance. Can you let a failure of governance produce yet another devastation of world heritage class assets?

To whom it may concern,
I object to the proposal to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.

1. The main stated purpose is flood mitigation, however the proposal does not address ALL THE POSSIBLE SOURCES OF FLOODING IN THE AREA and as such is a subminimal plan.
2. The real issue is allowing development on floodplains which should never have been allowed. The problem of flooding MUST BE ADDRESSED IN A DIFFERENT WAY. This way is short sighted and ineffective.
3. The are devastating environmental issues and problems that would result from the proposal were it to go ahead. This issues and problems out weigh ANY possible gains, which are not conceded.