Kampong Chhnang: Sre Ampel waterfall site is a place where the water falls down from the mountain valleys after hundreds of kilometers, covered with the natural shadow of the forest. It is located at northern Oral mountain at Kdol village, Krang Skea commune, district district, Kampong Chhnang province.

The provincial authority has been discovering and managing the site for tourists to visit next future. Mr Seng Saly, a president of provincial tourism department raised a point on April 5, 2016 that this waterfall site is located at northern Kampong Chhnang town about 64 Km where there are many waterfall sites that the water flows from the valleys to make the condition easy to create natural tourist sites for people to swim and meet friends and family.

During the last dry season, there was not much water to swim in because the tourist community at Pusat province has stopped the water dam. However, they promise to drain the water after Sre Apel waterfall was developed and created. So no matter what seasons it will be, people can always go to swim at Sre Ampel waterfall.

General Mackevili wrote:That's, um, beautiful. About time someone gave Siem Reap a run for their money.

I wonder [ in the kingdom of wunder ] what it would have looked like before they cut all the trees to make it look , um, beautiful. [ fourth picture ]

excellent report

what waterfall?

I was quite interested in this thread having lived in Far North Queensland and often going to see waterfalls, 'rock-hoping' or 'going 'hunting for waterfalls as I used to say to my old man - bush walking and following streams into the wilderness to find swimming holes and finding nice photography spots etc. I had the same interests in Northern Thailand. I really like and respect that kind of thing...

Were there really swimming holes at that particular spot in Kampong Chhnang? Fark.....

Just looks like a few natural water pools that are almost stagnant with the amount (lack of) of trickle going through....

I have heard of certain places being replanted with trees and trying to re-establish the natural environment (and those sites being successful in that respect - only after many years)..... maybe the forces at play need to rethink their approach....

I have previously worked on EIA's (Environmental Impact Assessments) with various universities. Such a shame about short-sightedness. I guess EIA's don't really (ever??) occur in Cambodia? It always seems short-to-medium term profits that outweigh the longevity of the environment..and I am not just talking about Cambodia specifically.

Has anyone heard in the news what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef?

The writing was on the wall years ago, now the Australian Government is jumping up and down about a potential 6 Billion loss in tourism dollars per year because of all the coral bleaching....mmmmmmmmm... (It is not just the coral bleaching, it is the major impact that it has on other species that rely on that particular environment for one reason or another).

It seems Cambodia is already suffering in terms of water shortages, I truly hope that a solution arises, and quicky.

I will dismount from my horse now and walk away from my podium.....

Yep, Loose 6 billion $ from tourists, and gain 6 billion from dredging and developing coal ports, and exporting coal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone heard in the news what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The writing was on the wall years ago, now the Australian Government is jumping up and down about a potential 6 Billion loss in tourism dollars per year because of all the coral bleaching....mmmmmmmmm... (It is not just the coral bleaching, it is the major impact that it has on other species that rely on that particular environment for one reason or another).





The Australian Marine Conservation Society warned that the dredging would kill the reef and cripple the tourism and fishing industries.

‘‘No one is going to come from around the world to see the world’s biggest coal ports,’’ spokeswoman Felicity Wishart said.

Ports Australia CEO David Anderson said that developing an overall ports strategy was essential for individual ports to work out long-term master plans.

"It's certainty in the planning process we're looking for," he said.

"Queensland have been involving ports quite closely in the development of that plan.

"In developing those plans, they can sign up to meeting certain environmental standards that are in line with community expectations."

The strategy is open for public comment until December 13 and legislation would be in place by next year.

Along Queensland's 7000 kilometre coastline, there are 20 ports including 15 trading facilities, two community ports and three gazetted non-trading ports.

AAP


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/new-p ... z45nHfWJ7r
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

As I said, the writing has been on the wall for -- well - decades now.... and not just because of coal mining, but also other impacts, or similar things to growing sugar cane.

I have worked with Jamie Seymor as well as other professors and James Cook University (among others).

The damage to the reef was already being done back then, (80's - 90s - even earlier - (50s-70s - prior to my studies - (I am only in my 40's) not just siltation, chemical run off etc. etc. but ) 6 Billion worth of minerals - by your calculations (that are a clearly exhaustible resource - 10 -20- 30 years?) Vs something that has been around for a millennium? Its is about management of the problem and research. For example, sure, Brazil apparently is doing great with bio fuels, (Sugar Cane etc) what chemicals are they using? - Sadly I don't have that answer...and I am not in that kind of position now in any event.

yes - so an exhaustive resource Vs something that might not be able to be replenished as easily as forests (even if you do it correctly)....

I don't have all the answers, but have worked in the field, and with people whom 'seem to' have much more of a scientific observation. What do you think?