Dear Authors,

Thank you for responding to the reviewer comments. I appreciate your willingness to take many of them on board; but I was a little concerned that you disagreed with Reviewer 1's recommendation to shorten the general background on water resources (re the Falkenmark, Rockstrom approaches) and not to focus on more regionally specific approaches. I support this suggestion from Reviewer 1, because the value that your paper adds is really in the regionally specific application, and part of the difficulty that you yourselves allude to is the need to address multiple framings of a water problem. By focusing on the region and only providing the technical background necessary for a reader to understand the metrics used, this complexity can be reduced. Reviewer 1 is correct in pointing out that there are many reviews and thought-pieces which present more comprehensive overviews of these frameworks.

Other than my concern regarding this point, the paper is ready for minor revisions based on the interactive discussion with the reviewers.

Thanks,

Sally Thompson

Hello Authors,

Thank you for a thorough and sincere approach to revising the paper. I am comfortable with the paper proceeding to publication, but want to ask for one brief round of minor editorial corrections - I notice that the paper is heavy on abbreviations (often referring to different organizations), and a cursory check on my end indicates that these are not always either spelled out or defined (e.g. CONAMA appears in new text, and I cannot find reference to CONAMA anywhere else in the paper). Could you please do a final review to check that all abbreviations are spelled out in full the first time that they appear, and that basic information about the nature and authority of different organizations referred to is provided for readers who are not familiar with the policy and organizational structure related to water and agriculture in Brazil? Once that's achieved, we should be good to go!

My best,

Sally Thompson