I received two comments. One is major revision and another is minor revision. After receiving the comments, I carefully read the manuscript again. In general, I concur with the two reviewers that the manuscript needs major revision before it is accepted to be published in HESS.
I suggest the authors provide a detailed replies to the comments made by the two reviewers, and make your revisions to the manuscript accordingly. After receiving your revision materials, the two reviewers would make their second-round of reviews. A few specific suggestions are listed below:
1. Please clearly pinpoint your manuscript’s significant contributions.
2. Clearly explain the power and limitation of hydraulic head data and discharge data in your inversion calculation.
3. To compare the two methods, the conditions or constrains used in the two approaches should be similar. Tell the readers how do you objectively set your standards to evaluate the two approaches.

I received two review comments, one is "publish as it is" and another is "publish subject to minor revisions". Therefore, I suggest its "publish subject to minor revisions (further review by editor)". The authors need to address the comments made by the reviewer 2 and modify their manuscript accordingly.

The authors have made their revision accordingly. Therefore, I suggest "Publish as it is"

Congratulations!!

Best,

Bill Hu