Much thermal generation is near the sea/ocean since a lot of population is there as well. Once through cooling is no problem there, only a diffusor pipe system has to be built to mitigate local thermal pollution issues.

Anyways, for inland locations, dry cooling is a proven option available at a small increment in levelised cost. Historically little value was placed on water conservation, so most plants are wet cooled. Adding a tax on freshwater cooling (bigger in arid areas) is one solution.

However, a more productive option is to use CHP thermal desalination and water treatment plant, using the nuclear plant's turbine heat rejection. This both creates a lot of new freshwater supply (from eg sewage water, brakish water, salt water if a sea/ocean is nearby) while reducing cooling water use (because the CHP can be seen as increased efficiency). If no water supply is nearby (could be the case in arid areas where freshwater supply is most dire), other CHP uses can be devised, such as paper and pulp heat input, other chemical processes etc. etc. that can also greatly reduce cooling water use.

This is one problem that is easily solved, and that can actually reduce fuel use and imports even more in the process by reducing natural gas and oil that would otherwise be needed if CHP was not available. This all does require the right policy. So now that you're reading along, Barack... :)