“Australia ICOMOS is concerned that the EIS is fundamentally deficient,and that the very nature of the project is at odds with both appropriate cultural heritage practice and obligations that arise from the World Heritage Convention,” the submission noted.
The $1 billion-plus plan to raise the dam’s wall by 14 metres has proven controversial,with opponents arguing it would potentially have an impact on the world heritage-listed Blue Mountains.
Loading
“The Dam Proposal is inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention with respect to the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area... and neither the Dam Proposal itself,nor the EIS comply with specific Decisions of the World Heritage Committee,” the submission said.
ICOMOS also said there had been a failure to properly inform registered Aboriginal parties of plans,and there had been inadequate consultation with traditional owners.
The complaints echo a submission from respected Sydney archaeologists thatthe Aboriginal heritage report for the state government’s EIS was “manifestly inadequate”.
Particular concerns were raised over an estimated 131 additional Indigenous archaeological sites in the Project Upstream Inundation Area and the submission authors argued that it was impossible to make an informed decision about impacts if their significance and location were still unknown.