Open science practices such as publishing data and code are transforming water science by enabling synthesis and enhancing reproducibility. However, as research increasingly bridges the physical and social science domains (e.g., socio‐hydrology), there is the potential for well‐meaning researchers to unintentionally violate the privacy and security of individuals or communities by sharing sensitive information. Here we identify the contexts in which privacy violations are most likely to occur, such as working with high‐resolution spatial data (e.g., from remote sensing), consumer data (e.g., from smart meters), and/or digital trace data (e.g., from social media). We also suggest practices for identifying and addressing privacy concerns at the individual, institutional, and disciplinary levels. We strongly advocate that the water science community continue moving toward open science and socio‐environmental research and that progress toward these goals be rooted in open and ethical data management.

Conservation‐oriented rates that reflect the true price of water can change consumers' water use and pay off in reduced operating and development costs. Old and familiar ways of setting water rates can fail to recover the cost of providing water service, can send inaccurate signals as to the worth of this scarce resource, and are becoming more and more difficult to defend. At the same time, revenues from rates and charges are essential if water agencies are to accomplish their mission of providing dependable, potable water on demand. What can water utilities do to price water more sensibly, ensure financial viability, and achieve a publicly accepted and successful rate‐making process? The California Urban Water Conservation Council has developed a technical handbook on alternative pricing approaches and their associated effects. “Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing Conservation Rate Structures”1 demonstrates how quantitative tools can be used to measure rate effects, develop strategies for managing the results of rate changes, and provide insights about the process of successful rate‐making. By linking technical knowledge with practical implementation tools, rate‐making that incorporates conservation objectives can be accomplished.

No abstract

We convened a workshop to enable scientists who study water systems from both social science and physical science perspectives to develop a shared language. This shared language is necessary to bridge a divide between these disciplines' different conceptual frameworks. As a result of this workshop, we argue that we should view socio-hydrological systems as structurally coconstituted of social, engineered, and natural elements and study the "characteristic management challenges" that emerge from this structure and reoccur across time, space, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach is in contrast to theories that view these systems as separately conceptualized natural and social domains connected by bi-directional feedbacks, as is prevalent in much of the water systems research arising from the physical sciences. A focus on emergent characteristic management challenges encourages us to go beyond searching for evidence of feedbacks and instead ask questions such as: What types of innovations have successfully been used to address these challenges? What structural components of the system affect its resilience to hydrological events and through what mechanisms? Are there differences between successful and unsuccessful strategies to solve one of the characteristic management challenges? If so, how are these differences affected by institutional structure and ecological and economic contexts? To answer these questions, social processes must now take center stage in the study and practice of water management. We also argue that water systems are an important class of coupled systems with relevance for sustainability science because they are particularly amenable to the kinds of systematic comparisons that allow knowledge to accumulate. Indeed, the characteristic management challenges we identify are few in number and recur over most of human history and in most geographical locations. This recurrence should allow us to accumulate knowledge to answer the above questions by studying the long historical record of institutional innovations to manage water systems.

Drawing on theoretical, practical, and normative rationales, the analysis presented here calls for revisiting the prevailing water service paradigm, and the values and frames it reflects. As is increasingly apparent, current pricing policies may not be sufficiently responsive, pragmatic, or durable, particularly in reconciling competing objectives often cast as the equity–efficiency conundrum. Water is a social good that confers both private and public benefits. The proposed universal (all-inclusive) pricing model envisions five concurrent elements: recognize public functionality in cost allocation (scope economies), calibrate a minimum bill to property assessment (capacity value), provide an essential-use allowance for all households (public health), design cost-based rates for variable water usage (resource management), and prohibit disconnection and deploy service limiters instead (water security). The model advances meaningful structural progress toward social equity while comporting with generally accepted principles to fairly allocate costs and send economic price signals where they make sense.