Dear authors, dear Regula,

Your manuscript has received two referee comments and an additional 2 short comments. I am happy to see that the comments generally agree in their assessment that your study was thorough and well presented. Several issues were raised that require a revision before the manuscript can be considered for final publication. This revision will be sent back to the referees. I have forwarded them the additional material in a separate email, with the question to evaluate this with the next revision.

While I generally agree with your replies, I would like you to reconsider reflecting on the study by David Finger. This study seems relevant since it focusses on projections of streamflow in Switzerland, so I cannot simply go along with your suggestion that this would only serve citation boosting. In addition to citing work for backing up methods, results and the discussion of limitations, it is important to also reflect on the novelty and scientific contribution of a study, which is done by reflecting on previous studies on similar questions (e.g. taking into account differences in model setup, resolution, to what degree do the conclusions match).

Best regards

Ryan

Dear authors,

As you can see there are still a few minor issues that need to be addressed. The minor revision will also allow you to change the title of the manuscript as we discussed by email. Looking forward to receiving a revised version, and I will make sure to make a quick decision.

Best regards

Ryan Teuling

Dear authors,

Thank your submitting a revised version of your manuscript. I am now happy to accept this work for final publication in HESS.

Best regards

Ryan Teuling