Thank you for taking the opportunity of improving your manuscript by being responsive to the reviewers' comments. I think this is shaping up into a terrific contribution, and I have a few suggestions. (1) In terms of the general contribution of this work, let me suggest another argument for its importance. In integrated hydrologic models that include mountains, the assumption of a perfunctory, shallow groundwater system only is quite common. When the suggestion is made to include deeper groundwater processes, the answer is always: K decreases with depth so why bother, or there is no data. Given this sorry state of affairs, any study that elucidates the deeper groundwater processes in mountain systems is an important contribution. (2) Instead of the term aquifer, you might consider just using the term "aquifer system." (3) I am not convinced that your "perched aquifer" is perched. From Fig. 2 it looks like dh/dz between that shallow water table and the next deeper groundwater level is about 1, which would indicate saturated vertical downward flow from the part tapped by 2D to the part tapped by 2C. For it to be clearly perched, there would have to be a dh/dz > 1m or actual evidence that the intervening rocks are dry even where there is adequate porosity.
Please incorporate your changes in a new version of the manuscript, take another look at the perched aquifer issue, and upload. I will turn it around quickly.

Best Wishes,
Graham

Congratulations! I am approving your paper for publication. Thanks again for a great job in handling reviewer comments.