These comparisons to existing uses of water besides cooling "AI data centers" ignore the fact that water use for "AI data centers" is additive. It is a _new_ use of water not seen before. As such, the comparisons to existing uses are unconvincing.
A bizarre "justification" such as "[existing use, e.g., chocolate] is permitted to deplete water supplies therefore [new use, e.g., AI data centers] should be permitted to deplete water supplies by similar amounts" does not scale. The supply of water is not unlimited. Not all new uses can be accomodated without affecting other uses.
This strange "reasoning" something like "so-and-so already does it" may appear to be based on some AI cheerleader notion of "fairness" but in reality it is based on a disregard for the limited nature of the resource, as if there is an unlimited supply. There is more money behind "AI" than chocolate. Truthfully, in the event of shortage, "fair" allocation where every use is accomodated is not realistic.
People want chocolate. There are hundreds of years of history to prove it.^1 But do people want "AI". It is being forced on them. If they accept it, if they essentially have no choice, then is that the same as "wanting".
1. The history of "AI" is absurdly short by comparison. It includes long periods of years where interest in "AI" was lost. Perhaps an AI cheerleader can dig up something about "Chocolate Winters".