this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
747 points (100.0% liked)

196

16574 readers
2216 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prunebutt@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Water for agricultural and domnestic use usually is fed back to the water cycle, though.

Watering my veggies is distinct from e.g. building a dam, or something.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 year ago (1 children)

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

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

Read the highlighted text in the post again, please.

[–] Stovetop@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.