Two reviewers thoroughly evaluated your manuscript. Main points were raised that concern (i) simplified assumptions when calculating the total inflow to evaporation rates, (ii) a more detailed discussion about these simplified assumptions, (iii) placing the results into context of management strategies,(iv) missing details about the calculation procedure and (v) uncertainty analysis.

The authors answered in detailed to all the raised concerns. At the current stage, my decision is only based on these answers as a revised manuscript is not required in the Discussion forum yet. Due to the many comments requiring detailed rewriting of the manuscript, I will reconsider the manuscript after major revisions have been done.

In the next stage, please upload the revised version of your manuscript to the HESS system. (Like you already did to the discussion forum, but you will get a notification by the HESS system).

I am looking forward reading your revised manuscript

Christine Stumpp

Dear authors,

Thank you for revising the manuscript according to the helpful comments of two reviewers which helped to substantially improve the manuscript. Both of the reviewers agree that all comments were addressed in the revised version and the manuscript can be accepted for publication now.

There were three minor remarks raised by one reviewer - and I totally agree - which should be addressed when uploading the files again for production. These are (line numbers refer to version with track changes):

1)Line 589 – “The intercept of the LMWL and LEL lines yields the…annual mean…values of precipitation” – I’ve always understood this to be average recharge, not annual mean precipitation. The distinction is important because average recharge may not reflect average annual precipitation.

2)Lines 636-641 – It isn’t clear what was gained by adding equations 11 & 12.

3) Lines 646-650 – What drives the difference in estimated groundwater flow to lake Ahveroinen 1? Is it differences in del-L? Otherwise, is there a reason to expect summer groundwater discharge to be greater than winter? This might be expected in Rokua because the aquifer is unconfined and so discharge may be affected by seasonal recharge – just a thought.

Concerning the reviewer's comment (2), I suggest deleting the equations 11+12 and refer to equation 10 (and t0=0) for calculating the fluxes. Comment (1) requires just rewording (average recharge) and comment (3) can be addressed including 1-2 sentences if any explanations can be given.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to HESS.

Best regards,
Christine Stumpp