Dear authors,

Overall, the reviewers appreciate the potential contribution of your manuscript, however, both have a significant number of substantial comments regarding your analyses and the way you presented your results. That said, I think that, by considering each of the comments and suggestions, your manuscript could eventually become an interesting contribution to the hydrological literature. I suggest you provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each of the issues raised by the reviewers (your current replies in the pdfs are a good starting point) and revise your manuscript accordingly. Given the substantial nature of the comments the manuscript will be sent out for review again (in principle to the same reviewers).

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet

Dear authors,

Although your manuscript has improved with respect to the original submission, there are still several issues that require your attention. In particular, reviewer #1 raises a number of relevant points that you need to address before I can accept your manuscript. An important issue is that you have not responded adequately to some of the points raised earlier by this reviewer. Please make sure you revisit these points and address them appropriately. Reviewer #2 also has an issue that you need to incorporate in a revised version of your paper. In summary, please provide a point-by-point reply to each of the issues raised by the reviewers and clearly and explicitly state where this leads to changes in the manuscript (please use a different color or font to indicate any changes in the manuscript). Your rebuttal and your revised manuscript will be sent out for review again.

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet

Dear authors,

I am happy to be able to accept your paper for publication in HESS, subject to solving the technical issue that the reviewer mentions.

Best regards,

Remko Uijlenhoet