Both reviewers liked the paper and recommended it for publication in HESS.
The authors did a thorough job in responding to the reviewers' comments and in modifying the manuscript accordingly. I have a few final suggestions for improvement:

1. The title is very general as it refers to 'small islands' in general, while the paper considers 'small low-lying islands'. I suggest to add 'low-lying' to the title as well.

2. The authors need to be consistent in the use of 'freshwater' as one word or two words (I prefer one word).

3. The authors now specify specific yield and porosity, as requested by both reveiwers. I don't understand how porosity can range from 0.1 to 0.2, while the specific yield is 0.2. The specific yield is always smaller than the total porosity.

4. Recharge has dimensions length per time (HESS policy). Annual recharge is given in mm/year, but monthly recharge is given in mm. Please correct that to mm/month. Other recharge rates used in the paper should be checked.

5. Reviewer #2 correctly states that (comment 9) hydraulic conductivity (and other factors) controls gradient, not the topography. The response of the authors is that higher topography allows for a thicker lens. That is only the case if the lens is limited at the top by the land surface (is it here?), as the sea level is the same on either side. Furthermore, a thinner lens results in a higher gradient when the flow is the same. (Flow = k * lens thickness * gradient). So the authors should really reconsider their response to this comment as I don't think a general statement on the relation between higher topography and gradient can be made.

I recommend to publish the paper in HESS.