The findings laid out in yesterday's Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report are savage.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) "completely ignored climate change projections" for determining water take limits.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) "completely ignored climate change projections" for determining water take limits. It "failed to disclose key matters, such as modelling".

It "failed to disclose key matters, such as modelling". The MDBA "relied upon the opinion of the Australian Government Solicitor" in the definition of the environmentally sustainable level of [water] take.

The MDBA "relied upon the opinion of the Australian Government Solicitor" in the definition of the environmentally sustainable level of [water] take. "It ignores the best available scientific knowledge."

"It ignores the best available scientific knowledge." " … the MDBA has shown itself unwilling and incapable of fulfilling their [sic] statutory functions and obligations".

While we wait to see what the fallout will be, independent experts say the following steps must take place.

Accountability

Decision-makers must be held accountable for the Murray-Darling disaster, according to experts. ( Supplied: Rob Greggory )

People must be made personally accountable for the decisions that led to the disastrous conditions the Murray-Darling is now facing.

That's according to the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics, Quentin Grafton.

He argued that naming individuals and taking legal action where necessary would deter unscrupulous decision-making in the future.

"These decisions were made by people, not faceless bureaucrats," he said.

"People have to be named. There needs to be transparency and accountability."

An independent, transparent governing body

Experts say the river is a public resource and needs to be governed transparently. ( ABC Rural: Brett Worthington )

Among the findings of the Royal Commission was that the setting of the environmentally sustainable level of take (ESLT) was legally at odds with the Water Act.

An independent, overarching body that can set, monitor and enforce water extraction rules is absolutely fundamental, according to Jeff Connor from the University of Adelaide.

Professor Connor, who was previously at the CSIRO and advised the MDBA, said we need a governing body without the "fox in the henhouse".

"If we want to have accountability, we need an overarching commission which has money and power," he said.

"We've got to have a regulator that is at arm's length from the process."

On Wednesday, Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick took photos, from his chartered plane, of cotton farms legally holding water in dams in southern Queensland.

Professor Grafton said monitoring water should rightly be the job of a governing body.

"It's crazy that it takes a senator to fly on his own to see where the water is," Professor Grafton said.

"This is a public resource, and we all deserve to know what is happening to the water."

Metering and consequences

Scientists say metering needs to be upgraded and enforced. ( AAP: Dean Lewins )

In 2017, a Four Corners investigation uncovered evidence that some of New South Wales' largest cotton irrigators were pumping during low flow periods and while metering equipment was broken.

A statement signed by 12 of Australia's pre-eminent Murray-Darling Basin experts in the wake of yesterday's report said that water metering on the river was inadequate and that taxpayers "deserve better".

"Despite allocating half a billion dollars in 2007 to upgrade water meters in the basin, as much as 75 per cent of all surface water diversions in the northern part of the basin may not be metered," the statement said.

"That makes no sense."

Professor Connor said metering needs to be improved, but there also must be dedicated monitoring of those meters.

"There needs to be not only better metering, but there needs to be enforcement when people take what they aren't allowed to take," he said.

Water allocation

Water allocations need review, researchers say. ( Four Corners )

According to the Royal Commission's report, the recommended environmentally-sustainable range of water to be recovered for the river was between 4,000 to 7,000 gigalitres.

However, alleged interference from the board dictated that the water recovery amount had to start with a "2". The board came up with a figure of 2,750 gigalitres.

The amount of water returned to the system has to be founded in science, and be dictated by what is best for the health of the river rather than politics, according to the report.

Significant investments have recently been made in water capture technology on farms, according to Professor Connor.

"Water catchment technology has been upgraded, but you don't see it in the [extraction] numbers," he said.

In the past, excess water used to irrigate farms would run off back into rivers and wetlands.

But improved capture means less water returns to the system.

Professor Connor argued that this needs to be taken into account when coming up with environmentally-sustainable water extraction limits.

Climate change

The Guide to the proposed Basin Plan in 2010 recommended 6,900 gigalitres be returned to the system.

But as climate change is predicted to make the basin warmer and drier in the coming years, those figures may need to be revised up.

The Royal Commission's report found that the MDBA was given climate change advice from the CSIRO, but "this advice was ignored by the MDBA".

"This amounts to negligence and maladministration," the report said.