Strong wording for a loose statement. I might turn it back and say that the water is a representation of mortality and lack of God.

Saying that water is a representation of mortality is just another way of saying that it's closely related to death, while your point on it being representative of a lack of God is, in many ways, inconsistent with the narrative.

Even just by invoking Noah's Ark, the story is essentially emphasizing God's role in water, and the onset of more water at the climax and its receding as the giant eye leaves is quite telling about the connection between the appearance of water and the seemingly elusive nature of the deity. There are also subtle hints, whether it be the man's refusal to take the water (which is internally consistent with his rejection of the deity) as well as the apparent resistance of man to God when the flood begins, seen by the resolute stillness of men who are unfazed by the rising water.

I don't buy the interpretation that these fisherman find themselves caught within the mortality of water for two reasons. The first is that their lifeless and stoic appearance, along with their blue coloration, is so close to death that to say that they're caught up in death would essentially repetitive. In addition, the fact that they are not drowned but standing as if like soldiers at attention during the rain is counter to the idea that they were caught. Had they been washed away, had they suddenly been consumed while they continued to chase the fish, maybe this interpretation would have more merit, but at the moment, I don't think, and excuse the pun, it holds much water because there are too many internally inconsistent ideas if I bought the argument.

Anyway, I could have expanded the point a bit more in the analysis, but I wrote this at work and wasn't too interested in pursuing that thought further.