Both reviewers were generally supportive of this work, but note some discrepancy between the approach (and terminology) used here and found elsewhere in the literature. I do agree with the authors that these terms should not be changed as they have been documented before, but please give a reference to the reviewers comments where possible. E.g., the remark on "managed ET" in table 3 (reviewer 2) is adequately addressed in the text entry of that table, but I do agree with the reviewer that "manageable" would have been a better term.

I do not fully agree with your reply to reviewer 1 that "discussions on the accurracy of runoff measurements are beyond the scope of this paper". The reviewer refers to the fact that also uncertain information can (and is) still be used in many decision taking processes, a comment also made by reviewer #2. So I would recommend to add a paragraph that puts your discussions on limited RS accuracy in the context of the current practice of decision making based on uncertain information sources (such as runoff data).

Figure 8 is indeed difficult to understand. Please make the caption and axis labels fully self-explaining.

And please refer to all comments of the reviewers in your revised manuscript, as you have indicated in your review response.

As with the companion paper: not all changes proposed by the reviewer or editor seem to have been implemented in the revised version (e.g., Fig 8 and its caption is unchanged relative to the original manuscript). Please give a list of changes or a version of the new manuscript that indicates which changes have been applied.

Most reviewer remarks are adequately addressed. Some minor leftovers:
* replace the comment "As such it is recommended that they are not used to formulate important policy decisions" by a more general statement about the limited usefulness of these data for decision make. Don't make the recommendation too explicit, it's up to the decision maker to select the sources of information
* near the statement "Latter is the part of water that cannot be utilized due to lack of required infrastructures" you make a reference to flashfloods, which I don't understand. Clarify
* your explanation of "beneficial ET" in the reviewer reply is better than in the new manuscript. Please use the explanation in the reply
* Concerning the statement "The only possible outlet is underground basin discharge" I agree with the reviewer that errors in P and ET affect the estimate of this underground discharge. You need to modify this statement where you make clear that the residual term collects errors in other budget terms and terms that are not included yet, such as underground discharge
* text in caption of figure 8 is not clear (the word "in" seems to be misplaced)