Both reviewers come to the conclusion that the paper is of potential interest for thereaders of HESS but that it requires major revisions and re-review before it can bepublished. These revisions apply to various aspects of the paper and the underlying model analyses. Above all, the objective of the paper and how this adds to existing literature has to be much clearer. Important methodological choices have to be better explained and referenced. I invite the authors to submit a revised version that carefully addresses all the raised points along the lines of the public discussion. I would like to underline that this revision and corresponding "answers to reviewers comments"(rebuttal) should be as concise and explicit as possible in terms of methodological choices. Answers like "We didn’t use it for the calibration of the model because we didn’t think it would add to the purpose of the study at this stage" (see https://editor.copernicus.org/index.php/hess-2018-493-EC3.pdf?_mdl=msover_md&_jrl=13&_lcm=oc108lcm109w&_acm=get_comm_file&_ms=71572&c=156518&salt=172373938980109026) are not acceptable (lack of actual motivation of why you thought it is not useful).

Dear Authors
the paper went through a re-review. One reviewer gives detailed suggestions for some additional minor modifications. The 2nd reviewer is not convinced by the added value of the study, i.e. by what we can learn from this study that goes beyond the case study. How can the single study convince you/the reader that "SWAT is a model that can be successfully transferred to simulate streamflow and climate change impact for high altitude glacierised ungauged watersheds." ?

In view of these inputs, I would like to ask you to address the minor revisions, and to pay attention to emphasize in the new version why a single case study like this can give valuable insights.

The paper is almost ready for publication.