I analyzed the original manuscript together with the Reviewers’s comments and the Authors’ replies to these. I find the material included in the paper of interest. As the Authors state (and as I observed considering the paper as well as the references brought forward by the Authors), the study contains both a description of the data/set as well as some preliminary analyses and interpretations. With reference to both aspects, several concerns have emerged during the review process. While it is not my intention to discount any of these during the further stage of the review process, I would also suggest considering addressing in details (a) data uncertainty (including hydrological data) as well as (b) the procedure employed to delineate groundwater bodies (including assessment of the uncertainty related to the boundaries of these), if these are properly delineated and if they are formally included in the data-base. Additionally, while I find the introduction of the hydrologic disturbance index (6) of interest, the way it is written appears almost as an afterthought, especially since the weights are not fully explained (at least in my view) and consequences of uncertainty on its various components are not discussed (or at least briefly analyzed). As a minor comment, terminology should be checked carefully. For example, K in equation (5) should be saturated hydraulic conductivity, I think, unless I am mistaken. With all of this in mind, and considering the set of revisions proposed by the Authors, I do think the paper can benefit from a series of further revisions after which I will be in a position to make a final assessment.

After analyzing the detailed replies of the Authors as well as the revised manuscript, I see no reason to delay acceptance of the study.