Water as the 'property' of the state In any such examination it is important to acknowledge that even the most expansive models of the commodification of water and risk 'sharing' still assume a situation of initial state control or 'ownership' over water in its various forms. Property constructs are variable and, as Fisher (2004) notes, can range from property held by the state, an individual, a community or an 'unowned' commons. Whether the posited 'unowned commons' of economic-resource theory can exist in reality is a moot point (for a discussion, see Fisher 2004: 201). Here in Australia, as noted, most debates about the degree and nature of privatisation in relation to water coalesce around the character of 'public ownership' rather than querying the initial vesting of the resource in the state. Typically in natural resources contexts, such vesting occurs through statute. In this regard, the Australian High Court has been called upon to determine the nature of Crown [Government] 'ownership' of natural resources in the seminal case, Yanner v Eaton. In that case, the Court accepted that: 'Property' does not refer to a thing; it is a description of a legal relationship with a thing. It refers to a degree of power that is recognised in law as power permissibly exercised over the thing. The concept of 'property' may be elusive. ... Much of our false thinking about property stems from the residual perception that 'property' is itself a thing or resource rather than a legally endorsed concentration of power