Construction on the controversial Sugarloaf pipeline from the Murray to Melbourne is already well underway but the long-running political pipe gripe has still dominated this week's debate in Canberra on water reform.
The pipe's fate is now in the hands of Federal Labor MPs, who can agree to changes in the Water Amendment Bill which include stopping the pipeline.
They could also block the changes to avoid the unravelling of the inter-governmental agreement between the basin States, but in doing so the whole Murray Darling Basin reform plan could then be put on ice if Coalition Senators stick to their guns and refuse to pass the Bill until the pipe is stopped.
One theme continued throughout Tuesday's day-night match between Labor and the Opposition and minor parties – why take water from the system when the idea of the Government's multi-million plan is to save it?
Senators argued for hours over the merits of sending Murray water to Melbourne, even if the water is found through significant savings and efficiency technology, when farmers and communities are being told they have to cut back because "business as usual" can no longer continue.
The Opposition's spokeswoman on natural resources, Fiona Nash, blasted the Government this week for giving the nod to a project which she said "directly contrasted" with the real savings being achieved in the basin.
She said the recent water buyback had only resulted in real savings of 849 megalitres of water being returned to the register, while the pipeline would allow 75,000 megalitres (75 gigalitres) to be sent to Melbourne.
"Melbourne, at the same time, is allowing something like 400 gigalitres in stormwater run-off to just disappear and is not doing anything to ensure its own sustainability as an urban capital," Senator Nash said.
"We are told that that 75,000 megalitres is going to come from savings from the food bowl and that those savings will deliver the water to Melbourne.
"Any water that is saved in the Murray-Darling Basin through water efficiencies and water savings should stay in the Basin.
"Given the current state of the Murray-Darling Basin and all the work that is going towards ensuring the sustainability of basin, under no circumstances should water be taken out of the basin."
Her Liberal colleague, Bill Heffernan, said the pipeline could mean up to half the water available to the Goulburn Murray next year could be diverted to Melbourne.
Senator Heffernan explained the annual average take-out for Goulburn, Pyramid Hill, Rochester, Shepparton and Turrumberry in 1994-95 was 2700 gigalitres.
Last year he said they got just a bit over 500GL, while next year 250GL is predicted.
"In that same system, with sheer stupidity, we have agreed that Melbourne will take what will be 100-odd gigalitres gross and 75GL net down a pipeline," Senator Heffernan said.
"There is already 94.6 gigalitres in credit in the system, as they see it, from other savings, so, if they get the pipe built in time, that could mean that next year they could well be taking nearly half the water that is available in the system, unless there is a dramatic change in the weather. How stupid is that?"
But it was Greens Senator, Rachel Siewert, who really lost her cool when debate on the pipeline resumed late on Tuesday night.
Senator Siewert slammed the Federal Government for being "hypocritical" in its approval of the Sugarloaf pipeline.
"The government's position is not only hypocritical but it also stumps me," Senator Siewert said.
"We are collectively, as a community and as a nation, spending a vast amount of money—and I must say that the Greens agree with spending that money—on buying back water so as to get to a situation where we get as much water as we can back into the system.
"While we have one Australian capital city (Adelaide) trying to wean itself off, albeit a bit too slowly, we have Victoria trying to put itself right onto the Murray.
"It does not make sense.
"It is all very well for the Commonwealth to wash its hands, like Pontius Pilate, and say, 'we assessed the route of the pipeline to Melbourne and we have put some conditions on that.'
"What it did not assess was the impact of taking 75GL of water out of the Basin and down to Melbourne.
"The communities of the Murray-Darling Basin have an absolute right to be very angry that, while they are making sacrifices and finding savings, their hard work is being undermined by people in Melbourne sucking water out of the system."
Minister for Water, Penny Wong, got pretty angry herself, also alleging hypocrisy on the part of the Coalition who did not block the proposal when they were in Government either.
"If this amendment gets up and is retained, this would undermine the IGA," Senator Wong said.
"You are prepared to play politics with the Murray-Darling, just as you did for over a decade.
"But your colleagues in Victoria will use this pipeline and the water.
"If you were really serious about this issue, you would have ensured that the Victorian Liberal Party refused to support this project."
Senator Wong said Federal environmental regulations ensured Melbourne only receives a share of water saved through the Food Bowl Modernisation Project and that independent audited reports of the savings achieved are undertaken.
She reiterated that it was a condition that savings for environmental water, may not be allocated to Melbourne.
Email a friend