We have received very detailed and useful comments from three reviewers. They all agree that the manuscript is of potential interest for the hydrology community; however they have listed a series of concerns that need to be appropriately addressed. The author’s responses have addressed some of the concerns by the reviewers, but some of them need to be more carefully answered by including new results and analysis as needed, and including a discussion of the new results into the paper. For example, two of the reviewers are concerned by the possible sensitivity of the results to the choice of Grace Product. Though the authors have partially answered this question, a more thorough analysis on the sensitivity should be considered (see for example question 3 by reviewer #1 and similar questions by the other two reviewers). These and all the other concerns by all reviewers, including a more clear presentation of some aspects of the methodology (as requested by reviewer #1 and #2) need to be thoroughly addressed through a major revision of the paper. Please note that the revised manuscript will be sent back to all the reviewers.

Dear authors,

I agree with the reviewers that the paper has been greatly improved by addressing all previous comments. There are a few minor issues that still need to be addressed before publication (identified in Report#1 by reviewer#3).

Kind Regards,
Patricia Saco

The minor comments by the reviewers have been adequately addressed.