Dear authors,

following up on the very constructive reviews provided by the two referees of your manuscript, it is quite obvious that some major issues need to be addressed before considering publication.

Both referees consider - and so do I - that your paper suffers from a certain lack of clarity. There is a clear need for stating the objectives and build the flow of ideas around these. In the revised version of your manuscript, make sure to clearly state what is the status quo on lake water balance analyses, what is wrong with the status quo and how you intend to overcome it (basically convincing the reader that what you propose is new and innovative). It is always very useful for the reader to have the structure of the manuscript summarized at the end of the introduction, guiding her/him through the text all along. In the discussion your results should finally be placed in perspective (to studies having been carried out by other groups and ideally cited already in the introduction).

As you have already stated in your response to the reviews, the changes that you intend to implement will most certainly greatly improve your very interesting contribution.

I am looking forward to receive your revised manuscript.

Best regards,

Laurent Pfister

Dear authors,
following up on the submission of your revised manuscript and the subsequent very positive evaluation of your contribution by the two referees, I have the pleasure to accept your manuscript for publication in HESS. Thank you for having chosen HESS for publishing your research.
Best regards,
Laurent Pfister