The manuscript has been reviewed by two independent reviewers. Both reviewers raised critical issues about this work. A crucial point is related to the extremely limited number of data employed for the analysis (only 14 data). Additionally, it can be noted that the variance of the data is quite large in some sites and it is questionable if these data are indeed representative of the sites.
In order to support their work, the authors performed 4 additional CP tests. The inclusion of these new tests in the revised manuscript could be of interest. However, I am not convinced that these new results will enable the authors to characterize in an unique and convincing way the connectivity of the sites. Along these lines, the authors should also compare K CP-based estimates with K values obtained from other methods (mentioned in the original manuscript).
In summary, at this stage I would be willing (albeit not entirely convinced) to give the authors a very last opportunity to revise their work in the context of the current review process. In doing so, they must take into proper account all of the critical issues which have been raised during this stage. It has to be however clear that in case the manuscript is not brought up to sufficient quality (along the lines indicated) it will then not be allowed to proceed and will be released.
Minor comments: Some parts of the manuscript should be rewritten, for example the experimental procedure is quite standard and therefore section 4.3 could be deleted, some figures are not necessary and could be easily removed (see the reviewers detailed comments).

In this revised version of the manuscript, the authors have considered and addressed some of the major concerned raised during the previous revision process (two reviewers, major revisions). One reviewer is (almost) satisfied by the revisions provided by the authors while the second reviewer decided not to provide additional comments on this work.
After my own reading of the revised manuscript, I regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be published in the present form. Even though the scope and content of the manuscript could be of interest for HESS readers, the current version still contains typos, awkward sentences as well as undefined (or not properly defined) variables and (more important) not properly sustained comments/conclusion . This denotes a certain lack of care by the authors in compiling their work to make it accessible to readers. Even as it is not the job of an Editor to deal with this matter, I decided to devote a considerable amount of my time to provide some suggestions related to this point (see annotated manuscript). Note that the parts that I highlighted are only examples of segments which are not clear / awkward. Therefore, I strongly urge the authors to deeply revise the wording in their manuscript.
In the annotated manuscript I have also reported several notes about some inconsistences between reported results and the associated comments. The authors should seriously consider these before resubmission and address them in case they decide to submit a revised manuscript.
Additionally:
- Section 5.2 is a stark example of a segment which does not add any significant contribution to the manuscript. I strongly suggest to delete it.
- Page 3 line 14 and elsewhere in the manuscript. There are no direct measurements of hydraulic conductivity. Hydraulic conductivity is always estimated, for example by making use of the flow (Darcy's law) equation.

I would like to add that I am disappointed about the way the authors have considered all the issues summarized above. I am adamant in pointing out that this is the very last opportunity that I am willing to give the authors. In case the authors do not consider all points raised with the proper care and precision, the manuscript will be halted and released.