Dear Author,

Two selected reviewers and one public comment/review evaluated your manuscript. The overall scientific significance is judged as good, the scientific quality as fair and the quality of presentation poor. Given the constructive comments given by the reviewers, I find the technical note worthwhile to publish in HESS after revisions and further review by the Referees. The author must provide more in depth analysis/description of the limitation of the approach as noted by the Referees. The author is also advised to increase the quality of the presentation. Shifting the mathermatical derivation to an appendix might be worthwhile to consider as also suggested by one of the Referees. Please adjust the manuscript according to the comments by the Referees as much as possible. Please provide a revised version of your manuscript and a detailed note that describes if and how the Referee comments have been dealt with.

The revised mansucript and note will be send to the two reviewers for further evaluation.

Sincerely,

Albrecht Weerts

Dear Author,

This is a necessary step, I think you already uploaded the new manuscript if not please do so

Sincerely,

Albrecht

Dear Author,

One of the reviewer and I are satisfied by the changes made.
However, some minor issues mentioned by the reviewer need to be addressed

Reviewer: I have read the article for the second time and acknowledge that the author has addressed all my concerns and has improved the article as requested. However, I recommend to fix some language issues before final publication. For example the author omits, as common in his native language, but inappropriate in English, article of nouns. For example:

P 8. l 29 "This regularity may suggest possibility of" should read "This regularity may suggest THE possibility of"

This error is reoccurring.

On P8 L 21-22 the sentence:

"Ef values exceed 0,95 for both models as a rule, in particular at high numbers of reservoirs, what testifies the quality of both models quite well"

should be rephrased as:

"Ef values exceed 0,95 for both models as a rule, in particular at high numbers of reservoirs, which shows the quality of both models quite well"

Can you adjust the manuscript accordingly and submit a revised version

Sincerely,

Albrecht Weerts