Like fossil fuels, fossil water is not a self-renewing, i.e. sustainable resource. When it's used up, we're back where we started. Also, it seems this stuff isn't really convenient to come by.

Granted, though, if 100 centuries' worth of water is really extractable, this may be pushing the problem so far into the future that we can buy a lot of timer for better solutions.

The point of view of "business friendly" Republicans is generally that if the resource lasts for 25 years, that will make life better for people who live now. In that viewpoint, why would you prioritize some theoretical future people's needs over the needs of people right now?

I think many knee jerk liberals haven't yet internalized this viewpoint, and don't (yet) have great answers to that question. (Or turn it around: if you think this is wrong, but don't have a good answer, that makes you a knee jerk liberal!)

PS: I say this as a centrist liberal.