I would be pleased to see the changes as proposed in your response to the reviewers made to the revised manuscript.

The referee has stated that you have addressed their main concerns and is happy to proceed with publication.

This is a very interesting paper. I have just one remaining question which I think it would be important to address before publication, and I apologise that this was not picked up at first review. How did you arrive at your decision on which parameters to include in your analysis
"To simulate a wide range of possible flow conditions and limit the degrees of freedom for the possible model realizations we selected Ksat and porosity for calibration, while the Van Genuchten-Mualem parameters remained constant."

Previous work I have carried out (Cloke et al, 2008) has shown that these types of models can be sensitive to a range of parameters and I believe you have not carried out a full sensitivity analysis which does worry me slightly as this would impact upon your findings. How many parameters does the model actually have and how many have you varied? Could you comment on this briefly in a minor revision?
Reference: Cloke, H. L., Pappenberger, F. and Renaud, J.-P. (2008), Multi-method global sensitivity analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes. Hydrol. Process., 22: 1660–1674. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6734

The authors have addressed the last editorial comment succinctly and swiftly and the manuscript is now suitable for publication in HESS.