I think we have to back off from the question and see what we mean by 'water'. If we are questioning the structural similarity of water to the substance we know scientifically, what was it before that?
Outside of a given scientific paradigm, water is something with three states that is usually encountered as a liquid, that in that state conducts heat well, and has a certain convenient surface tension behaviors that make it wick into cloth, that expands when it solidifies... In short, it is a collection of behaviors.
But behaviors of a substance are perceptions. It is very hard to imagine that any collection of accidents like perception can prove to have an absolute logical necessity. So it seems down that path your answer is going to be no.
However, these perceptions are mediated by the interface between body and mind. So there is a huge place in the system for psychology. To some other being, constituted quite differently physiologically, the relevant aspects of water for us, might all be met by something else. After all, what is transparent depends upon your eyes, and what flowing means depends on your sense of time, and...
We can take half a step in this direction by looking at something like Robert Forward's 'Camelot at 30 K', where he constructs a society that uses hydrogen flouride the same way we use water, since the major difference between the two substances is that the latter has a very, very low boiling point. He extrapolates that things are slower, so they have to be smaller in order to have the same sort of rhythm of life and otherwise finds reasonable ways to make their experience of H2F be our experience of H2O.
You can imagine continuing down this path of mapping the experiences of more and more exotic beasts onto human experience to consider stranger and stranger substances to be the equivalent of water, manipulating aspects of those variant creature's natures so that their experience of, say, boiling tar, would be our experience of water.
Eventually you could reach the point where 'water' was not two of one thing and one of another, but a compound of three different elements.
We can't get there by working up from more detailed layers of science, because we got those layers by observing our macroscopic universe, and delving it. So when this beast explored its own chemistry and physics, it would not agree with ours.
That would mean that the laws of nature are not only distant from necessary truths, but can take variant forms depending upon what sort of beast derives them.