Dear authors,
thanks for the discussion of your paper. As you could see from the reviewer comments, there are several points that need to be improved and considered before I can consider the paper to be accepted in HESS. Please consider carefully the comments, provide a detailed response and send the revised manuscript (as a plain text and a text highlighting all changes) and the reviewers will review the paper again before I can reconsider the paper.
Best regards
Markus Weiler

Dear authors,
after carefully reading your responses and the referees report, I would like to propose to publish the paper in HESS, after you provide some more information about the effect of neglecting some information for rainfall events larger 7.5mm and how you analysed and events to minimise the effects on your analysis. I think this would make sense either (to both) in the method and the discussion section.
Best regards
Markus Weiler

Dear authors,

I consider the paper close to be published in ESS. However, you need to adjust the figure to be in line with the typical scientific style in HESS. So, please (1) remove all border lines of your figures, Increase font size of the labels, use darker grey or black for labels and lines, align figures, optimise the legend (do not repeat), make time series readable (in particular in the supplemental materials). In general, Excel is not a good approach to generate figure to scientific publication without further optimisation.
The conclusion reads more like an abstract - please adapt accordingly.
Change numbering and symbols of equations. For example a symbol called PET or IS is not accepted in HESS.
Some minor points: table 7 is difficult to read - rearrange. The reference to some tables is not correct (Table 7 7) page 15.
In general please read the information for authors in detail and change your manuscript accordingly, either wiese I cannot accept it for publication in HESS.

Best regards
Markus