## 2 Theoretical and Methodological Underpinnings  
This investigation relied on a three-step method which involved the following: (1) desk research to review the theoretical literature (political ecology and hydrosocial science); (2) the development of criteria for the initial selection of applications and areas of impact; (3) interdisciplinary expert consultations--apart from the authors, consultations included renowned scholars from political science, environmental justice, philosophy, AI ethics, and environmental engineering--to validate the list and discuss the possible implications of digital water management.  
The approach proposed in this paper takes its cue from urban political ecology (UPE) [20; 21; 22; 23], a theoretical perspective that can be used to help unpack some of the main assumptions of the 'positive' or 'technocratic' approach to water digitalisation. UPE has traditionally explored the entanglements of power with the infrastructural provision in cities: instead of looking at infrastructure as a mere technological and apparently unproblematic issue, UPE scholars explore the political and conflictive dimension of technological and infrastructural projects [24]. Thus, the urban environment can be conceptualised as a socionatural hybrid. It embodies the relations, technological artefacts, networks, and flows that make urban life possible [25]. Building on the same metaphor of the hybrid, the concept of 'hydrosocial' aims to transcend nature-society binaries and envisions the circulation of water as a combined physical and social process [20; 23]. Thus, water infrastructures and technologies of any kind--i.e., including the digital--need to be understood as an inseparable intertwining of cultural, political, and economic relations [25]. It follows that an evaluation of the impact of AI on the water sector needs to consider this hybrid nature and, importantly, place these applications in a wider sociopolitical context.  
In this sense, urban political ecologists have begun to study the relationships between the deployment of water infrastructures, technologies, and governance within the shifting forms of capitalism and neoliberalism [21; 26]. The growing importance of digital technologies in our society has brought about new forms of capital accumulation. Under so-called\"cognitive capitalism\", the industrial mode of production becomes obsolete and, at the same time, \"the object of accumulation consists mainly of knowledge\", which is now the primary source of value [27] (p. 57). A dysfunctional form of cognitive capitalism could be considered \"surveillance capitalism\", a term coined by [PERSON], who refers to it as a \"fully institutionalised new logic of accumulation\" based on the prediction and modification of human behaviour [9]. A fundamental shift in this new regime is that day-to-day practices--therefore water-related ones are included--become a primary target of commercialisation strategies [10]. Importantly, and given the rapid pace at which this trend is advancing, our society is yet to find a way to govern Big Data: how will it be used, to what purpose, who decides, and who decides who decides are fundamental political questions that remain largely unanswered [9].  
These questions are also profoundly relevant for how the 'digital revolution' in water will be understood and managed. Digital technologies such as AI, data-mining, and advanced monitoring have the potential to fundamentally transform the way we understand and collect data from water, as the sector becomes riddled with new ethical and political concerns. Bringing together UPE and hydrosocial approaches, the paper focuses on the choreographies of power, nature, and capitalism encapsulated in 'digital water' applications. The article asks: notwithstanding the benefits of these applications, to what extent are they obscuring instances of power and discrimination and what can be done to overcome these concerns?