Traditional landowners say NSW government has not done all promised checks on affected artefacts and sites

This article is more than 1 year old

This article is more than 1 year old

Traditional landowners have condemned a plan to raise the wall of Warragamba Dam, saying the New South Wales government has failed to fully check the affected area for Indigenous cultural artefacts and sites.

The government plan proposes to raise the wall 14 metres.

It will be subject to federal government approval after the environmental impact statement is released later this year and the final business case is considered.

Sydney's main water supply could have increased capacity, but at what environmental and cultural cost? | Ilan Salbe Read more

In March Australian Associated Press reported that the Berejiklian government planned to raise each end of the wall – the dam abutments – by 17 metres so it could easily be modified in future to hold back additional water.

The plan has been criticised for putting at risk threatened flora and fauna that could be inundated by dammed water in the world heritage-listed Blue Mountains.

The Gundungurra Aboriginal Heritage Association and Gundungurra elders, who represent the traditional lands affected by the dam proposal, said Infrastructure NSW and its consultants had declined to fulfil the archaeological methodology for the environment impact statement.

The methodology promised to visit dozens of creeks and rivers with high potential for Indigenous sites, examine the area’s creation story, and visit 45 identified spots relating to significant sites in the story, as well as other places of high cultural significance, they said.

However, only 26% of the total land which would be affected had been surveyed for cultural artefacts and sites, they said.

They also believe only 19 of the 45 identified locations have been visited, and some of those were incomplete.

It is understood the state government hoped to release the EIS by September. But it cannot release an EIS on the effects on cultural heritage if the entire area that will be destroyed had not been surveyed, they said.

They would not consider the findings of the report until the survey was completed in line with the methodology.

The amount surveyed was “grossly inadequate and does not represent or do justice to our vast cultural wealth contained within the impact area”, they said on Thursday.

If the Blue Mountains can be destroyed, what's safe? | Tim Vollmer Read more

“The impact that this proposal will have on our cultural heritage and ability to access significant ancestral land will be devastating.

“Until the dam proposal is scrapped, we will continue to fight for our lands and our culture.”

Give a Dam’s campaign director, Harry Burkitt, said that given the amount surveyed a lot more time needed to be spent assessing the cultural values of the areas that would be affected.

On Thursday a spokeswoman for WaterNSW said the Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment was being done following NSW laws and requirements.

Indigenous stakeholders had been in the field with archaeologists to compile information about the cultural significance and values of the area that may be affected. This was informing assessments.

A draft of the report would be given to Indigenous stakeholders and the department would welcome feedback, she said.