The concept of hydrosocial cycle as given by Linton and Budds has been discussed above. It is important to understand the rationale behind this concept. This can be understood based on the Hydro-Social relations. Various studies have been employed in building the understanding that water and society are interrelated and both shape each other in a significant manner. For example, water privatization will not fit into the social setup in many cultures and thus will be unacceptable (Bakker, 2010).
Many studies reveal the relational and dialectic thought between water and society. Thus, hydrosocial cycle signifies inseparability and of water and social dimensions. According to some studies, hydrosocial is an approach highlighting how particular instances of water embeds in the social relations and thus the way the changes can be brought up through which either the social setup is reframed or the usage of water is transformed (Boelens, 2014). Based on the discussion of hydrosocial cycle by Linton and Budds, three ideas can be inferred. Firstly, the management of water has two implications which include effect on organization of society and effect of such organization on disposition of water. Such disposition brings in changes to the organization of society (Schmidt, 2014). Thus, this is a cyclic process which is evolving continuously. As the above discussion, it can be said that the concept of hydrosocial cycle is quite relevant. This is true especially in the face of conservation of resources and the steps are taken up by the governments across the world. Other factor that supports the above discussion is that the element of recurrence, as in case of hydrological cycle, is maintained and comprises the dialectic nature the consequences of which have been discussed above.
Second inference is in relation to relationship between water and society. Both are internally related and can lead to development of each other in different manner. This has been supported with the help of example by Linton in the earlier paper wherein it is mentioned that certain technology for providing drinking water and developing social relations can be employed. The water fountain serving public at free of cost and the bottled water for which the consumers pay highlight this relation (Linton, 2010).
Lastly, although production of water and social construction water can have effect on the society wherein it can structure social relation as well as disrupt them. The water has agential role amongst different heterogeneous entities in the hydrosocial cycle. This is to say that it is one of the resources that are driving the other aspects in the cycle (Swyngedouw, 2009). Thus, hydrological cycle is inherent to the hydrosocial cycle. The examples given by Linton in support of this are the impact of controlling water on the society and the disruption it brings in case of uncontrolled movement. The building of dams and irrigation system are the example of former while the floods describe the latter.
The above discussion highlights the relevance of hydrosocial cycle and justifies the concept given by Linton and Budds. All these aspects are quite relevant and can be explained with the help of several examples. Some of these have been discussed as case studies later in this paper. Based on the above discussion, it can be said that the hydrosocial cycle has certain validity in the context of steps that are to be taken, which are in the interest of society as a whole and the utility of water based on the availability. This aspect is quite important in the current situation wherein water as one of the major resources is being affected by social framework and the actions.