The lack of attention to the social, political, economic, and cultural dimensions of water conflicts and water policies has led to the production of the hydrosocial cycle framework since the beginning of the new century (Bakker 2002; Budds 2008; Linton 2010; Swyngedouw 2004, 2009). This concept understands water as a socionatural hybrid formed as a result of the interrelationships between water flows and social, economic, political, and cultural processes. Linton and Budds (2014) define the hydrosocial cycle as a socionatural process by which water and society influence and transform each other along different spatial and temporal scales. As a result, water cannot be managed solely from technical and quantitative perspectives, since the environmental problems surrounding this resource are fundamentally social and political issues. Understanding water beyond its biophysical characteristics, such as its chemical composition (H 2 O), quality, and quantity, implies becoming aware of how its circulation is influenced by society through hydraulic infrastructures, legislation, cultural practices, and symbolic meanings (Budds and Hinojosa 2012). The aim of this concept is to try to overcome dualistic visions that separate water and society through a relational-dialectic approach that allows identifying how water, at the same time as it is produced by society, reconfigures social relations and highlights power relationships involved in this process (Linton and Budds 2014). In this way, it can be identified how the distribution and control of water resources in local contexts are influenced by processes of capital accumulation and unequal power relations produced at different scales (Swyngedouw 2004). Therefore, the hydrosocial cycle analysis provides a better understanding of how water flows shape and are shaped by institutions, practices, and human discourses that determine, in turn, ways of control, management, and decision-making (Linton and Budds 2014).