(Original article published by ABC News Online: September 16, 2008)

In the midst of the cacophony of political lambasting, parochial foot-stamping and media static engendered by the crisis currently affecting the Murray-Darling Basin, there has been scant voicing of what many view as the underlying anthropogenic cause of its plight: the 1994 decision of the Council of Australian Governments "to implement a strategic framework to achieve an efficient and sustainable water industry", emphasising "the adoption of pricing regimes based on the principles of consumption-based pricing"; in effect, the establishment of an open water market.

For the majority of the subsequent 14 years, this water "reform" process has induced increasingly polarised opinion but little frank debate. It was left to the likes of then Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, shortly before his resignation last year, to call the beast by its true name, privatisation.

Moreover, in recent months it has become increasingly clear that the maze of administrative and governance mechanisms responsible for the welfare of the basin are dysfunctional and frequently self-defeating. Concerns have even been raised regarding the validity of current arrangements under Section 10 of the Australian Constitution insofar as it applies to the "reasonable use" of water.

Current events confirm that the chaos continues, with "environmental" water being acquired as a result of one administrative decision, only to be redirected by another. This was demonstrated by the recent purchase of water-rich properties in the Darling catchment involving the Federal and NSW State Governments, raising hopes that our elected representatives were beginning to understand the importance of holistic ecological health as applied to the Murray-Darling Basin, followed all too quickly by last week's approval of the Victorian Government's North-South pipeline by the Federal Minister for the Environment and erstwhile conservationist, Peter Garrett. The Minister apparently believes that this project "will not require an environmental study" as "it will not impact on matters of national environmental significance".

The recent statement from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water that much of the rainfall in the upper Darling catchment "breaks out into floodplains or alternatively feeds into terminal wetlands resulting in a great loss of this water" confirms that some authorities have yet to grasp that the ecological health of the basin is essential to the economic well-being of its agricultural sector.

Such is the morass that is governance of the Murray-Darling.

Proponents of water reform, including the Wentworth Group, largely adhere to the mantra that a consumption-based pricing policy, monitored by an "independent" body, is the mainstay of efficient water management; trusting the market to take care of the precious resource that is Murray-Darling water. Under the circumstances, might the free market be a superior arbiter? Based on the evidence, this is certainly not the case.

The Queensland Government recently announced that it intends to grant tradable water licences to irrigators in the Condamine-Balonne river system, for volumes only marginally less than their current allocations: entitlements which were all but gifted to them not so very long ago. The current drought has convinced some agribusinesses that there would be more profit to be made from selling their water than using it for the purpose for which it was originally allocated to them.

It is not entirely implausible to suggest that, in the near future, some water-rich farming enterprises will list agriculture as a non-core activity, their primary income being derived from water trading.

In other parts of the basin, despite direct warnings from CSIRO scientists, irrigators are increasing the volume of water extracted from already stressed aquifers, as it is more financially advantageous to use groundwater rather than purchase the water they require from the rivers and associated impoundments; apparently oblivious to the absolute connectivity of water in river systems.

This is merely the neonatal phase of a process which, if unchecked, will lead to decisions directly affecting the price and availability of water being made by those whose sole credential is financial clout. Regrettably, neither Mother Nature nor the majority of the farming community have the credit rating required for membership of this potential star chamber. Under the doctrine of economic rationalism espoused by the water reform movement, there must be major concerns as to where water will be allocated and the uses to which it will be put.

Frustrations are escalating throughout the region: from the headwaters of the Darling, where farmers accuse their neighbours of water theft, to the Goulburn, where opponents of Premier Brumby's pipeline are threatening militant action, and in the Lower Murray, where, while large sections of the local community maintain their strident insistence that fresh water must be injected into Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, other residents are equally strongly advocating the opening of the barrages to allow ingress of seawater. Meanwhile, overseas interests become increasingly invested in this country's water-based commodity market, the abuse and unfettered export of our dwindling water resources continues and the river-system continues to degrade. Water wars, as feared by some overseas commentators, are surely not on the cards in this fine country; but the rumblings are unsettling and must be heeded.

Fair Water Use is a longstanding advocate of the policy which determines the availability of Murray-Darling water for commercial purposes on the following basis: Available commercial water allocation = Total inflows minus Environmental flow requirements minus Critical public needs of those communities directly dependent on river water. Commercial water would be allocated to businesses supplying produce for the domestic market in preference to those focused on export. This is clearly an oversimplification: the balancing of this equation will be a major task, but one that Australia must undertake with the highest priority if the Murray-Darling is to avoid ecological collapse

National Water Plans and Senate Inquiries offer little hope of prescribing the empirical rethink that is manifestly required. The implications of "getting it wrong" are quite simply too momentous to leave the task in the hands of those who happen to be charged with governmental responsibility at this time.

Australians should indeed be grateful to those who drafted our Constitution, defining the processes to be invoked in response to national crises: a state of emergency must be declared, to enable application of the necessary treatments to address the acute aspects of the malaise affecting the Murray-Darling Basin. A Royal Commission of Inquiry should also be established, to carry out an all-encompassing and independent review of the past, present and future of this ecologically profound and vital natural resource.