The Russians have launched people into space for over 40 years. Every one was launched in a capsule and not one of them landed in water. They perfected a braking rocket technique that cushions the impact greatly. It's essentially the same system they've used to airdrop heavy equipment from airplanes.

The early US spacecraft landed in the water because we didn't have the braking rocket and because many of the early reentry attemps were very inaccurate. We also had the US Navy available to cover multiple possible landing spots. It might be "cheaper" for NASA to go back to water landings instead of developing a braking rocket system, but that's only true if you don't have to pay for the cost of the recovery forces. Right now, the Navy has enough on its plate not to have to worry about deploying ships to recover spacecraft.

There may even be a better alternative to the braking rocket. They could use the steerable parachute developed for the X-38/CRV project. Those chutes can be accurately landed in small areas and can flare for landing, reducing vertical speed substancially. The US Army has experimented with GPS guided chutes like that to accurately put heavy cargo into small LZs. The system works quite well. I see no reason why it couldn't be used for manned spacecraft. It has the added advantage over a flyable vehicle that you don't need a highly trained pilot on board. Like the CRV proposal, the system can be fully automatic for reentry and landing.