You could, though, for example, set up a large collection system for water that would normally be fed into a tributary that other farmers are using downstream for irrigation. A company with enough resources to collect and bottle rainwater for profit across a large area that would otherwise feed into aquifers could bleed a small farming community dry.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't call that "domnestic or agricultural" use anymore.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right, it's just that not all rainwater collection is inherently domestic or agricultural, and that's why some places (ostensibly, at least) have laws restricting it, with the goal being to keep it feeding into the water cycle and not shipping it elsewhere.

[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Read the highlighted text in the post again, please.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I didn't miss that part, I'm just saying that usually that's not why laws like this are created. The stated intent of this one is likely something about protecting fragile aquifers and the real intent is gradual genocide.