Dear Authors,
thank you for your response to the reviewer's comments. The revised paragraphs and changes made will improve the manuscript.

Nevertheless, I see two shortcomings of the manuscript that have not yet been (fully) addressed by the authors but would be important for publication:

1. The authors should improve the discussion section as suggested be reviewer #2. The argumentation that WF results have been improved by using a higher resolution approach and taking into consideration drainage and canal leakages is not justified. What is the advantage of using this approach compared to others? I don’t see a revision of this section your reply to the reviewer’s comment.

2. Also related to reviewer #2 comments, the conclusions section is only a summary of your results. Instead of only summarizing results you should synthesize your key findings fit together. You should link the introduction with the conclusions. Is there a need for further research? Any recommendations?

In addition, the authors should take into consideration the following references (e.g. in discussion section):

- Liu, J. et al. (20189. Analysis of blue and green water consumption at irrigation district scale. doi:10.3390/su10020305
- Liu, J. et al. (2015). Evaluation of crop production, trade, and consumption from the perspective of water resources: A case study of the Hetao irrigation district, China, for 1960-2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.088
- Liu, J. et al. (2014). Impacts of changing cropping pattern on virtual water flows related to crops transfer: a case study for the Hetao irrigation district. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6645
- Quin, L. et a. (2016). Field-based experimental water footprint study of sunflower growth in semi-arid region. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7726
- Lovarelli, D. et al. (2016). Water Footprint of crop production: A review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.022

Dear authors,
the manuscript has much improved as a results of the review process and is now ready for publication. Additional remark:
1) Section 4.4 "The influence on efficiency of irrigation system" as stated in the response letter to Referee#1 has become the first paragraph in section 4.3 "Strategies for adjusting the crop production water footprint" in the main manuscript. I'd like to ask the authors to rethink this shift and suggest to keep section 4.4 (on efficiencies) or to move this paragraph to the end of section 4.3.
2) Please use the same units when comparing your results with results from other studies.