Thank you for addressing most of the comments of the 3 reviewers. I would like to call the authors' attention to some aspects that need further consideration and modification:

1. The authors' response to Comment 2 of Reviewer 1 needs to be reconsidered and reworked because the authors misunderstood what is meant by resistivity log calibration.

Because you are using the logged resistivity values quantitatively (e.g., in Archie’s law), Reviewer 1 correctly pointed out that to do so requires that the logs have been calibrated. This means that when the logs were run, a geophysical log calibration process should have been done that produces resistivity values that would be consistent enough for one to compare quantitatively the log resistivity values among the different logs. Log calibration is supposed to be done in the field by the person who performs the logging, but in practice, it often is not done and can certainly undermine the validity of Archie’s law calculations, among other things.

Reviewer 1 also correctly pointed out that salinity of the formation water strongly affects log resistivity, and that too should be taken into account. I do not see any sign that you addressed that.

I suspect that you do not know whether the logs were calibrated, and that it is unlikely that you would be able to acquire such information any time soon. Nevertheless, you need to figure out how to modify the manuscript to deal with the log calibration issue. One approach might be to acknowledge that you cannot verify whether the logs were calibrated, and then point out that this presents another source of error that could be reduced in future studies by only using logs that have been calibrated. In essence, you would be working under the assumption that the logs have been calibrated in order to present your work as a proof of concept.

You also need to deal with the issue of groundwater quality (TDS) and it’s effects on the resistivity values by either explaining that TDS variations laterally or vertically in the aquifer system are minimal (which seems unlikely) or that this is just another limiting assumption that could be eliminated by performing more complete analyses in the future.

2. The authors’ response to Reviewer 3 needs some more modification to reflect deeper introspection about their work. I agree that the tone of Reviewer 3’s criticisms is somewhat harsh, and from the point of view of an author, can be quite off-putting. There are, however, some important kernels of truth in several of Reviewer 3’s comments that are worthy of more careful consideration. In particular, your response to Reviewer 3’s Comment 1 needs some reconsideration, given that your assertion of the novelty of the work is based on the incorporation of resistivity logs (see my point 1 above with respect to Reviewer 1). I think that your assertion that the novelty stems from incorporation of the resistivity logs quantitatively into the work may be OK, but here again, you need the caveat(s) regarding how quantitatively representative the logs actually are.

Your response to Reviewer 3’s statement: “(1) there is no directional non-stationarity (e.g. no radial variability of the depositional major axis; no stratigraphic dip),…” seems incomplete, and I am not sure you fully understood it. Reviewer 3’s statement (1) above is basically asking why you did not model the spatial variations in the strike and dip of the fan facies. I am not finding an answer to that question in your responses to either Reviewer 1 (whom you refer to in this context) or to Reviewer 3. It appears to me that you did not have information on variations in dip or strike orientations of the variogram structure, which is why you did not account for that. This sort of thing should be included in the part of your paper that discusses model limitations and how it might be improved in the future.

I hope you take the above comments to heart in finishing the manuscript and making it into a stronger contribution to HESS and the broader literature. Thank you again for your scholarly efforts.

Thank you for responding to my requests and reconsidering some of the reviewers' comments. Your modifications have strengthened the manuscript and made it more transparent and useful to the readership. Congratulations!