Dear Authors,

you have received and you have answered to the three referees' comments (RC). Since the three reviews are in favour of submitting a revised version, we may proceed with the process.

Please, submit in 30 days a revised version of the manuscript and include changes as suggested in the Interactive Discussion (Referee Comments and Authors Comments). Please, also prepare a short list of changes in the revised manuscript including your answers to the reviewers comments - in case you disagree with the referee comments, please explain why - as for example about omitting Fig. 6 from the manuscript that was suggested by the Referee #1.

As two referees have asked for only minor revisions, the revised manuscript will be reviewed by one referee that have asked for major revisions.

The Authors Comments are promising so that we may assume that a revised manuscript will be positively reviewed taking into account that you revise your manuscript as announced in your comments to referees.

Please, also change the title of the paper to take into account the comments not to give the term "compound trigger concept" such a big importance.

Waiting to receive your revised manuscript in due time.

Kind regards,

Matjaž Mikoš
Handling Editor

Dear Authors,

after receiving one additional review, we may proceed with the publication. The reviewer suggested to accept the manuscript as it is. Thank you for the in-depth revision taking into account numerous reviewers' suggestions and comments.

Nevertheless, in this final stage, I would have a suggestion to extend the discussion related to debris flow events in year 1965 (events #6-10 in Table 2). These events all happened in one month (June 1965) - the first was attributed to Su (daily antecedent moisture content), the second one to P (daily precipitation), and the last three ones to M (melting).

I would suggest to get into more discussion specifically related to this month as it is worth explaining that triggering mechanisms can change rapidly, on a daily basis, following weather changes (raining and melting period).

Furthermore, it would be interesting explaining how is that this combination of 5 events in such a short time in 1965 has not repeated ever since till now (less snow since 1980's, high snow depths in 1965?). It think discussion of a time distribution of 25 debris events with regard to 1965 would be an added value, not just putting events into three distinctive groups of triggering mechanisms.

Additionally, as the Handling Editor I may have a few minor technical issues:
1. Page 5, line 29: the quotation should read "Hargreaves and Samani (1985)"
2. Page 15, line 19: the quotation should read "Marchi et al., 2002;"
3. Page 5, line 29: the quotation should read "Aleotti, 2004;"

I have checked the reference list and all references are used in the text, and vice versa.

Please, submit your revised manuscript at your earliest convenience to proceed to final publication.

Kind regards,

Matjaž Mikoš
Handling Editor