According to the extensive 74-page report, simulated flood evacuation models indicated that the Hawkesbury-Nepean Valley is one of the highest flood-risk areas in Australia.

With multiple tributaries flowing into the area but only one outlet, the region experiences a "bathtub effect," causing backflow and rapid water level rise, leading to widespread flooding. The report also highlighted that the impact of floods would intensify further with the influence of climate change.

Simulating various flood events, the report evaluated potential risks to human safety. The study found that if all potential development projects were to proceed, a significant number of people would be unable to evacuate within 12 hours, especially during catastrophic flood events.

According to the model's projections, by 2041, the number of people at risk of life-threatening situations could increase from approximately 980 to around 23,700.

The government's decision to halt residential construction in these high-risk floodplains is driven by considerations for public safety. This decision undoubtedly shocked and affected landowners planning developments in the area.

To communicate with affected individuals, the government has appointed a planning expert and established a hotline to address their inquiries and provide support.

Despite the cancellation of these development projects, the government is allocating 200 million Australian dollars to improve the area's infrastructure. This funding will be used for upgrades and enhancements on the Pitt Town Bypass, Garfield Road East, and Richmond Rd to Townson Rd, aiming to enhance the community's resilience to natural disasters.

Protecting the lives and properties of community residents remains the government's top priority. While this decision has dealt a blow to landowners, the government must balance flood risks with the public interest. Additionally, with the exacerbation of climate change, prevention and mitigation efforts for floods have become even more urgent.

The decision has also sparked controversy over whether the report should have been made public. Despite repeated calls for the report's release, the government had previously kept it confidential. Given the involvement of public safety and sensitive information in this decision, the government might consider it necessary to adhere to legal regulations and handle it in secrecy.