Clearly, this is a topic where where every hydrologist will have an opinion. As such, it is not surprising that a broad range of opinions have been raised by the reviewers. I have also got my own, which do not coincide with either the the author's or the reviewers', but which does not contradict them, either. I'll share it here for the sake of transparency, but without pretending anything.

It is clear to me that ground and surface water hydrology are sister disciplines, both daughters of hydrology. They share the object of work, though not the methods. Rivers cannot be understood without SW or GW, and I think that this is, in general, true at all temporal and spatial scales. It is also true for quantity and for quality. Since the goal of science is understanding,I consider self evident that SW and GW are part of the same discipline. I attribute to frustration the opinion of reviewer 2. In this context, I feel that the views expressed by the author may contribute to facing the problem from a realistic perspective.

The comments made by reviewers are interesting and positive, and so is the tone of the author responses. I am convinced he will have no difficulties in integrating these comments in the revised version of the paper. I do not anticipate difficulties in having the paper published in HESS, but I do not reject the possibility of seeking additional reviews.

Good work!