(As an aside, thanks also for the interesting info on desalination you shared in other threads. Do you have any pointers to good resources on this topic that are both up-to-date and freely available? I'm very interested in this topic but have found in the past that a lot of the open academic literature is out of date while the up-to-date industry sources are usually paywalled.)
Short story: barring sea rise that will do moderate damages at worst, and until we reach wetbulb temperature in SEA and india, climate drift will only have small, enhancing impact on already-existing disasters. It just makes disaster worst.
In terms of solutions, as I have mentioned desalination is a functional solution that developed countries will likely be able to deploy that should make the worst case scenario of mass starvation or thirst unlikely. In fact, given the costs of desalination it is likely that developed countries will be able to deploy it just because they do not want any lifestyle changes. Other than that, the most likely solution will be a massive reduction in water usage which is, based on my recollection, predominantly agriculture (~70%) followed by industrial (~15%) followed by recreational/aesthetic (~12%) followed by personal (~3%) or something similar to that distribution. Given how small personal usage for things such as drinking, cleaning, bathing is, this reduction would largely need to come from agriculture with maybe some coming from reductions in industrial and aesthetic uses such as lawns. Frankly any calls to reduce personal usage should probably be seen as evidence of a lack of understanding of the problem or possibly even a deliberate act of sabotage since it would have little impact on the problem, but come with a large human cost.
In terms of the feasibility of water usage reduction, a large reduction in water usage seems quite doable in the US given that it consumes ~3-4x more per-capita than similarly wealthy European countries. To some extent this is a partial misrepresentation since the US is a major food, and thus water, exporter, but I am fairly certain even without looking at the underlying numbers that the US can significantly reduce consumption without significant lifestyle changes. From what I have heard, but not investigated thoroughly, this is mostly blamed on the relatively large amount of meat consumption/production in the US which is not implausible on its face. Assuming this is the case, a reduction in meat consumption to European levels would be a fairly minor change in lifestyle that would dramatically reduce water consumption. Alternatively, the development of meat substitutes or artificial meat with far lower water needs could solve that problem. I am uncertain if this is a sufficient reduction as I do not know about the raw consumption/replenishment rate of water resources, but if it is not it would at least provide a significantly longer lead time to solve the problem in other ways.
In terms of research into desalination or the like I do not have any particular resources. Most of my knowledge is fairly surface level from piecing together random snippets that I find and doing some first-principles analysis.
[1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/aral_sea.p...
[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Aral+Sea/@45.9900368,43.86...
My point being: even if we all stopped eating meat because it takes too much water to produce, would this actually make a difference in the amount of water available? Or would it just change the rate at which the water is cycled from environment through plants and animals and back into the environment? And in the larger context of the water cycle, does it make any difference?
That infographic doesn't seem to touch on any of this, instead handwaving about the water being "virtual" or "hidden in the food you eat". It's not as though 3091000 liters of water just disappear, never to be seen again when those 200 kilos of beef spring into existence.