Dear authors,
You are invited to submit a revised paper and that in the supporting letter you clearly indicate the changes made. Since you have addressed the concerns of the reviewers so well in the discussion, I don’t consider there is a need for a second review if these concerns are properly addressed in the revised paper.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for this interesting paper and the adequate revision. I still have a few comments, which you can address in the way you feel appropriate. I don't need to review it again.
1. On page 2, line 28, you write"while it is assumed to be proportional to the subtidal axial velocity in Savenije's model" This is not entirely correct. The spatial derivative of D is proportional to the subtidal axial velocity. So I suggest you modify e.g. by: "proportional to the spatial integral of the subtidal axial..." or in any other way that the sentence is correct.
2. I think it is necessary to state somewhere that the calibrated D values in Table 2 are representative for the entire reach. The fact that you assume D to be constant along the estuary makes the D values spatial averages, or representative values.
3. I think that in the caption of Figure 12 where you write twice "in basis", you mean "on the basis of" or "based on"

Again, I would like to congratulate you on a very nice paper.
Sincerely,
Hubert Savenije