Both reviewers conclude that this is a potentially interesting paper but that it requires major modifications before publication in HESS. This namely includes better motivation of some methodological choices but also an improved literature review, an improve presentation of the results and a conciser formulation of several parts (e.g. the conclusion section). I invite the authors to revise their paper along the lines of their public discussion.

Thanks for this revision. The paper will undergo a second review round.

Thanks for the revised version, which will undergo a second review round.

Dear Authors

your paper has been re-reviewed by two reviewers of the original manuscript version. One of the reviewers still thinks that structure is not ideal. This is certainly related to the fact that some of the answers are not very clear (see additional detailed comments to the authors hereafter). Furthermore, the language needs polishing. Please answer the raised comments and submit a new version that will go through editor review only.

The authors addressed all comments of the reviewers and made a considerable effort to improve the language of the paper. The revised version is now ready for publication in HESS.