I don't think so, and here's why: we are post-scarcity when it comes to bottled water. You don't deprive any other 7/11 customer of bottled water when you shoplift, because 7/11 carries a lot of bottled water and has developed processes that ensure they never run out.

You could probably shoplift all the bottled water you can carry, every day, and you still would not deprive another customer. 7/11 would simply keep shipping in more water so they would have product to sell. (Of course they would also get some cops in there to try and stop you!)

Eventually, if they're not making enough money due to all the shoplifting, they might stop carrying bottled water. But that won't be because they ran out of supply; it will be because it's no longer profitable to do so. This is analogous to a movie studio deciding not to make or distribute certain kinds of movies anymore because it is no longer profitable for them.

What about the store? Surely you're depriving them of the bottle of water, right? Again, not really. The store does not actually want to possess so many bottles of water--what they want is to make money by selling bottles of water. And if you look at the economics of the transaction, that's primarily what you're depriving them of. Let's say a bottle of water is priced at $1.50. 7/11, who buys in bulk and then marks up, probably paid $0.50 or less for that same bottle. Thus when you steal it, 66% of the harm is in foregone revenue! Only 33% of the harm is loss of property value. Again, this is analogous to copyright infringement, where the primary harm is foregone revenue, not deprivation of property.