Gundungurra Traditional Owners: ā€˜Warragamba Dam project must be stoppedā€™

October 25, 2020
Issue 
Warragamba Dam during a drought. Photo: Maksym Kozlenko CC BY-SA Wikimedia Commons

Traditional Owners and former Burragorang Valley residents are fighting to save Gundungurra heritage against the New South Wales governmentā€™s plans to wipe out their culture.

The New south Wales Gladys Berejiklian government wants to raise the Warragamba Dam ā€” which supplies most of Sydney's water ā€” by up to 17 metres, flooding 6000 hectares of the World Heritage-listed Greater Blue Mountains Area.

The Gundungurra are one of the few Traditional Owners who, perhaps, uniquely under colonial occupation, remained settled on country until the 1950s when they were forced to move after Warragamba Dam was built to flood the Burragorang Valley and form Lake Burragorang.

Having lost their land and homes, without compensation, the Gundungurra are now fighting to preserve what remains of their important rock art and ceremonial sites.

Gundungurra woman Kazan Brown, who has been leading the fight to save significant sites, told Ā鶹“«Ć½ that not many important sites are left and they are determined to save what is left.

ā€œAĀ lot of places will be inundated:Ā weā€™ve got two major art sites left that will be inundated; burial sites; campsites; scar trees;Ā andĀ ceremony grounds ā€”Ā itā€™s all down there.Ā [Important] things will be lost ā€” we wonā€™t be able to get to our significant places.

ā€œMy grandfather used to refer toĀ theĀ NattaiĀ RiverĀ as our Vatican.Ā Itā€™s basically the spiritual centre of Gundungurra nation.

ā€œWeā€™ve been locked out for 70 years: peopleĀ cannotĀ take their kids back in there to show them where thingsĀ are.

ā€œMy kids need to know their culture and my grandkids and if itā€™s gone, how can they learn it?Ā The whole river system and the surrounding landscape are part of the Dreaming Story.

ā€œItā€™s better if we learn on site and the kids can see the rocks that are shaped like the animals or the drawings on the rocks.Ā Itā€™s a whole different thing to a bookā€.

BrownĀ said thatĀ about ten familiesĀ lived in theĀ BurragorangĀ Valley,Ā atĀ St Josephā€™s Farm,Ā and that it ā€œwas a different sort of placeā€.Ā A Catholic priest, Father Dillon, first settled there and ā€œmade sure that we were safeā€.

ā€œThere were no forced removals of children. I think there was only one death of an Aboriginal person at the hands of a white person. It was a very different place: black kids and white kids went to the same school. Aboriginal people had businesses. It wasnā€™t like the rest of the country.

ā€œJohn Joseph Riley, my grandfatherā€™s grandfather, was the first AboriginalĀ personĀ in NewĀ SouthĀ WalesĀ toĀ ownĀ land, here, inĀ theĀ Burragorang Valley.Ā His father George Riley was, theĀ familyĀ suspects, the first AboriginalĀ personĀ on the electoral roll andĀ allowedĀ to vote.

ā€œBut, they were all chucked out when the dam came alongĀ inĀ theĀ early 1950s. We were the last Aboriginal family to leave, and we didnā€™t go until just before it flooded.ā€

burragorang-valley-sydney-water.jpg

Burragorang Valley before it was flooded. Photo: Sydney Water

WhileĀ a committee was formed at the time to resist the land grab, there was no compensation, because,Ā as Brown put it ā€œwe were Aboriginalā€.

ā€œIt was just: ā€˜Pack your stuff up and goā€™.ā€

The Gundungurra have limited access to their remaining sites in theĀ BurragorangĀ Valley.

ā€œWe canā€™t get in. You have to apply to National Parks and then to Sydney Water and they decide whether or not we go, andĀ thenĀ they send escorts,ā€ Brown said. ā€œRight now, no-oneā€™s got access.ā€

ā€œThe GundungurraĀ tried to put a land claim in years and years ago, butĀ asĀ itĀ isĀ theĀ SydneyĀ WaterĀ Catchment, no-oneā€™s going to give Native Title.

ā€œNow, thereā€™s an Indigenous land use agreement, under which weā€™re supposed to get access, but they donā€™t make it easyā€,Ā Brown said.

Brown and the GundungurraĀ TraditionalĀ Owners are part of the Give a Dam campaign, to protect the cultural and environmental values of the UNESCO World Heritage Listed area.

ā€œItĀ involvesĀ people from different areas who oppose the dam ā€” the Colong FoundationĀ for Wildnerness, Landcare groups and people fighting for plants, animals, for water quality, and us fighting for our Aboriginal heritage. Weā€™re working together.ā€

WhileĀ the Gundungurra are theĀ TraditionalĀ Owners of theĀ valley, when the area was World Heritage ListedĀ for protection by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Gundungurra cultural landscape was not included.

ā€œThat makes it a little difficultā€, Brown said. ā€œThere arenā€™t a lot of laws that protect Aboriginal culture. When there is one, theĀ government just changes it to suit itself.

UNESCO has criticised plans to flood the World Heritage-listed site, butĀ theĀ NSWĀ government changed theĀ law and now it can be flooded anyway,ā€Ā Brown said.

There isĀ an ā€œAboriginal Placesā€ listing on the State Heritage Registry,Ā but thatĀ only means itĀ is going toĀ be recorded, notĀ protected.

Brown criticisedĀ theĀ governmentā€™sĀ lack of engagementĀ with Aboriginal peopleĀ in Sydney Waterā€™sĀ Aboriginal heritage study, which hasĀ nowĀ been leaked.

ā€œThey only surveyed a quarter of the area,ā€ she said. ā€œThey wrote their report without speaking to us. The woman from Niche Environment and Heritage,Ā who wrote the report was in the field for one day.Ā She made her decisions based on photographs.ā€

Brown isĀ also frustrated byĀ the attitude towards Aboriginal heritage byĀ some in the local community.

ā€œIĀ donā€™t know why itā€™s so hard for people to look at Aboriginal sites and try to understand theirĀ significance.Ā One of theĀ councillors from the Hawkesbury looked at some sites and said: ā€˜Itā€™s just a hand print on a wall, itā€™s no big dealā€™.

ā€œYou know that hand print could be 40,000 years old.ā€

But suchĀ attitudesĀ areĀ changing,Ā particularly afterĀ Rio Tintoā€™s destructionĀ ofĀ Juukan Gorge in Western Australia.

IAG InsuranceĀ announcedĀ at its AGM on October 23 that it was withdrawingĀ supportĀ for raising the dam wall because ofĀ shortfalls in the governmentā€™s review,Ā particularlyĀ its assessment ofĀ the impact on Aboriginal heritage.

Earlier, insurers had been vocal supporters ofĀ raising the dam wallĀ becauseĀ it wouldĀ reduce the cost of insuring properties downstream at risk of flooding in heavy downpours ā€”Ā which will increase underĀ climate change.

But Warragamba Dam represents less than a third of the threat of flooding from the complex catchment and tributaries flowing towards the populated floodplain of theĀ Western Sydney basin.

Australian National University flooding expert Ā said that rising theĀ dam wall is not the answer to downstream flooding.

ā€œThe governmentā€™s flood strategy is relying solely on raising Warragamba Dam wall which would expose residents to flood risk,ā€ he told Australian Associated Press after floodingĀ took placeĀ in February.

The dam mostly captures water from the catchment, while the Hawkesbury River and its tributaries ā€” such as the Nepean and the GroseĀ Rivers ā€” fill up at choking points and eventually spill over during heavy rain events.

ā€œThere have been many damaging floods that did not involve floodwaters coming past Warragamba Dam,ā€ PittockĀ said.Ā ā€œThey shouldnā€™t proceed with raising the dam wall. The key is to stop building suburbs in flood-prone areas.

Brown wants theĀ whole damĀ project scrapped. She has vowed to keep going. ā€œWeā€™re not going to give up.ā€

You need Ā鶹“«Ć½, and we need you!

Ā鶹“«Ć½ is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.