I'm guessing a water pipeline would be cheaper, and it would need less capacity. But it would have to be constructed for underwater conditions, and any maintenance would be cumbersome.
Edit: Digging a bit further, subsea pipeline lay cost can be roughly approximated at 0.04 million USD per inch-kilometer (that is, multiplied by pipeline length and by diameter in inches) for 8"-24" pipe. Furthermore we can estimate that Barbados would need a flowrate of 5 000 L/s to supplement their water supply, giving an optimal pipeline diameter of 8". That means it would cost 942km * 8in * 0.04 million USD/(km*in) = 300 million USD.
Also, the cost of permits (called Right-Of-Way, ROW) is a very small fraction of the total cost, as is the planning cost. Materials cost for the pipe, OTOH, can be as much as 60% of total.
Still I think the numbers seem off for a boat dragging water in bags for 6 days to be cost effective.
One would think a pipeline would be cheaper. I guess they have done the maths on a $2 million investment though. But it's not intuitive.