Multiple issues in hydrologic and environmental sciences are now squarely in the public focus and require both government and scientific study. Two facts also emerge: (1) The new approach being touted publicly for advancing the hydrologic and environmental sciences is the establishment of community-operated "big science" (observatories, think tanks, community models, and data repositories). (2) There have been important changes in the business of science over the last 20 years that make it important for the hydrologic and environmental sciences to demonstrate the "value" of public investment in hydrological and environmental science. Given that community-operated big science (observatories, think tanks, community models, and data repositories) could become operational, I argue that such big science should not mean a reduction in the importance of single-investigator science. Rather, specific linkages between the large-scale, team-built, community-operated big science and the single investigator should provide context data, observatory data, and systems models for a continuing stream of hypotheses by discipline-based, specialized research and a strong rationale for continued, single-PI ("discovery-based") research. I also argue that big science can be managed to provide a better means of demonstrating the value of public investment in the hydrologic and environmental sciences. Decisions regarding policy will still be political, but big science could provide an integration of the best scientific understanding as a guide for the best policy.