Enhancing accountability has become an important objective of the governance reforms over the past two decades. This has resulted in the promotion of social accountability tools, which aim to enhance citizens’ voices, reduce corruption and improve service delivery in the development sector. While several studies have analyzed the effectiveness of these tools, such as participatory budgeting, in broad governance contexts, only a few studies have explored their use in the water sector in particular. This report aims to contribute to filling this gap as part of a multi-country study on the linkages between social accountability and corruption in the water sector. We present the findings from a case study of a donor-funded water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) program in Nepal, the Water Resources Management Programme (WARM-P). We document and analyze the effects of two types of social accountability tools, public hearings and social audits, implemented under WARM-P. We examined how these mechanisms have contributed to increased transparency, participation, voice and accountability, and in turn discuss their potential to reduce corruption. Two case study water supply schemes in two districts of Nepal were selected – (i) Sanakanda scheme in Goganpani VDC, Dailekh district; and (ii) Kalikhola Bandalimadu scheme in Mastabandali VDC (now Kamalbazaar Municipality), Achham district. Several methods were used to collect data in these two sites, including key informant interviews, household interviews, focus group discussions and the observation of a public audit. We also conducted interviews with national-level stakeholders from the WASH sector in Kathmandu. The study found that the social accountability tools provided a platform for water users to participate and deliberate on issues related to the execution of WASH schemes, and this has enhanced the legitimacy of WARM-P. The social accountability tools focused on enhancing the accountability of local water user committees, whereas the local communities do not have the political resources and means to explicitly hold funding and implementing agencies accountable. The tools focused on the integrity of the water user committees in budget management, whereas local expectations are related to fair payment of wages, sufficient and fair access to water, and inclusive, transparent and accountable decision-making processes in the design of the water scheme and water allocation. The narrow focus on budgeting has not provided space to address these environmental and social justice issues. Findings from the study also indicate that the concept of deliberation and downward accountability, as envisioned in international development discourses, does not necessarily match with local power relationships and local cultural norms. In particular, when the chairperson of the local water user committees is the local elite and is perceived as the only educated and suitable person for the position, the pursuit of accountability through formal procedural mechanisms might be elusive, as the capacity of judgment and sanctioning are absent or minimal.