I’ll repost here what I posted to you on the other thread.
>> Why is it an incredibly horrible idea ?
#1: Do you REALLY want a federal bureaucracy governing every aspect of using and producing water — from where, and how deep, you drill a well, to how often you can water your lawn and wash your car? ‘Cause what happens in California and Texas (my own perennially drought-plagued state) will affect (say) how often you water your lawn in Pennsylvania. Do you really want that degree of control by the government that brings you that miracle of efficiency, ObamaCare? Think about it.
#2 Where do we stop with this concept? Why just water? North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas all have natural gas production. Tennesee has little. That’s unfair... the producing states should pipe it to Tennessee (coerced at the point of a FedGov gun). And how about granite? I hate the prices I pay for a granite countertop. New Hampshire calls itself “the granite state”. C’mon New Hampshire... you’re getting our natural gas and Michigan’s abundant water — pony up that granite for all of our benefit?
#3 How about states like Colorado? What do they have to offer? Nothing but “scenery”. That’s why Colorado was basically ignored as a pretty wasteland for hundreds of years (until gold and silver were discovered, but that’s about played out). So under your plan, every other damn state will send Colorado their God-given fruits, and then what? They’ll export scenery? Can’t be done. So even MORE californicators will move to Colorado, pay nothing (at the state level) and suck up the bennies of all the other states.
I tell you, centralized averaging of the natural wealth of the states is a losing proposition.
That's it Texan, we're shutting off the Rio Grande and keeping the water for ourselves. ;)