Thank you for your summary of intended revisions to address the main points made by the reviewers. I think that your planned changes will address the reviewer comments satisfactorily, and I invite you to submit a revised manuscript.

In response to your proposed new figure on "Annual cycles at three river systems of various climate in the Indian subcontinent" I would suggest removing the Godavari (it looks rather similar to the Ganga, even though it is a different climate class), and replacing it with something more distinctive.

Perhaps something semi-arid or arid? (Rajasthan/Gujarat/inland south India?) Or perhaps in the part of Tamil Nadu where the rainfall regime is more winter-dominant? I'm just guessing; you know Indian hydrology (and the available data) better than me, so I am sure you know what is actually possible.

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the concerns of reviewer #1, and, in my judgement, partially addressed the concerns of reviewer #2, some of which could not be addressed within the scope of the study design.
Reviewer #3 considers that further changes are still required, and I agree. I request that you address the comments of reviewer #3. In particular I note the following:
1. Length: the Introduction and recap of PUB best practices still takes 6 pages
2. Key objectives or science questions addressed. Lines 105-124 include a large number of verbs denoting actions (present, identify, develop and slightly modify, use, address, etc). One or two overarching objectives or questions would help unite the many actions reported.
3. Repeatability: details on estimation of (i) vegetation and soil parameters (ii) maximum and minimum temperatures (iii) crop parameters and irrigation area.

One last point: the location of the site shown in Figure 10 is mentioned in the text, but not in the figure caption.