All the authors thank the anonymous reviewer for all the general and specific suggestions to improve the manuscript. In the revised version of the manuscript we will streamline our argument to better articulate the two foci of the manuscript. On the one hand, the hydrosocial analysis of the urban trajectories of León and Guadalajara to describe how the urban trajectory of León and Guadalajara has produced water problems and constraints which solutions are considered as feasible. This configures a path dependency that (re)produces itself in the form of a supply-demand cycle. And on the other hand, link this long-term hydrosocial analysis in the context of a decisive water conflict that is interfering with the reproduction of the supply-demand cycle. This is argued through the analysis of participatory modelling and how it can contribute to widen the decision space to expose the power dynamics between actors given the different approaches to solve urban water problems. These two foci contribute methodologically to hydrosocial studies through the use of participatory modelling, and theoretically to socio-hydrology by advancing the concept of supply-demand cycle in relation to water conflicts and development pathways crossroads.

“This is an interesting paper in which the authors seek to integrate socio-hydrology and hydrosocial approaches to analyse conflicts around supply augmentation projects. The methodology used by the authors involving a participatory modelling exercise is of particular interest as it has the potential to inform research in other contexts. I believe the author could further work to 1) further engage with hydrosocial research in the analysis of the cases, 2) provide more details helpful for the reader to understand the cases and further discuss the modelling exercise. I provide some suggestion toward this end below. I would also suggest the authors to consider to reduce the material presented in this paper. My  impression is that in the paper there is enough material to actually write two papers: one in which the development pathway crossroads of the two cities are analysed in-depth through a hydrosocial/socio-hydrology lens (as Kallis, 2008 does for Athens or Savelli et al. 2021 for Cape Town) and one in which the modelling exercise is analysed as a tool to open up the decision space in conflict situations. I am looking forward to reading revised version of the manuscript.”

• The authors could engage in a more in-depth hydrosocial analysis of the case presented. To give three concrete examples. The authors mention in the introduction that “large supply augmentation is based on sanctioned discourse and vested political and economic interests” (p.2), they also quote Lane on the need to pay attention to the relations of social power (l. 107) but this does not come back in the analysis of the cases, at least not so explicitly. The sections on the co-evolution of the water systems and society trends focuses on describing the decisions of the water utilities and the governments – a chronicle of proposed and failed projects is provided – however, less is said about the uneven relations of power and the wider discourses shaping these decisions – i.e. the authors underline economic growth, does modernization also play a role? And neoliberalization? Another missed opportunity in the application hydrosocial thinking is in the discussion of the modelling exercise. The different scenarios are evaluated according to indicators and the conclusion states that there are trade-offs – trade-offs are part of every water governance decision if one understands water governance as a political process like hydrosocial research does. What would be interesting and novel is to discuss the different scenarious in light of hydrosocial approaches: what are the socio-political-dynamics in these different scenarios/trade-offs, which shifts in power-relations between actors would they entail? Would these shifts be progressive in terms of water (re)distributions and politics? Moreover, in the conclusion it would be interesting to reflect on how/if the approaches of Kallis (2008) and Molle and Wester (2009) in the analysis of urban water trajectories are advanced when combined with sociohydrology.”

Response: We appreciate this comment and its two observations. Regarding the first one, in the revised version we will explicitly elaborate on the urban trajectories through the hydrosocial analysis. Both cities are affected by the sanctioned discourse of unlimited urban growth as based for their chosen development pathway. However, this sanctioned discourse is also part of a neoliberalization process that happened in Mexico during the 80s and 90s. We will introduce some paragraphs explaining this process and how it affected differently each city.

Regarding the second observation on the participatory modelling, we will improve our argumentation in the different ways some of the different scenarios would affect the socio-political dynamics and power relations between actors. But specifically, after a discussion with all the authors, we want to foreground how stakeholders choice of scenarios allow for the discussion of the decision space and how would this impact the development pathway of both cities and reconfigure the distributrion of benefits and risks for different groups in both cities.  In the revised version of the manuscript we will further elaborate in the discussion section what is the potential contributions to hydrosocial studies by conducting participatory modelling with key actors. 

• “The authors refer to the works of Kallis (2008) and Molle and Wester (2009) – both studies were published more than ten years ago and, in the meantime, a growing body of hydrosocial literature has emerged that the authors could engage with – see for instance the papers part of a Special Issues on rural-urban water transfers (Hommes et al. 2019) and the work of Hommes and Boelens 2017. It might be worth engaging with recent works on non-networked trajectories – see Allen, Adriana, et al. "Water trajectories through non-networked infrastructure: insights from peri-urban Dar es Salaam, Cochabamba and Kolkata." Urban Research & Practice 10.1 (2017): 22-42. And relatedly, I would encourage the authors to be explicit about their understanding of the term “urban water supply system”. I am wondering, for instance, has augmentation been pursued also because of the widespread tendency to prefer one networked water supply system over other non-networked realities?”

Response: We will take into consideration the suggested literature to enrich the arguments in the revised version of the manuscript. We will also make explicit our understanding of urban water supply system in the manuscript. We will refer to it as “socio-technical configuration of water supply in a city in relation to its water supply sources .” Responding to the last question, we think that the widespread tendency to prefer a networked water supply system is part of pursuing water supply augmentation. We have bits of interviews where water engineers and managers do not trust decentralized water supply solutions. We will further elaborate this in the revised version.

• “To better understand the lock-in situation you are describing, it would be helpful to have a bit more background about decision-making in relation to the Zapotillo project (i.e. you mention that the project was approved and announced in 2005, by whom? What happened between 2005 and 2013 when the project was halted? Who decided to halt the project? Who is involved in the local network of social actors that opposes the project?)”

Response: Some of the authors of this manuscript have already analyzed in depth the intricate decision-making process of the Zapotillo project, which is also published in this same special issue of HESS as Godinez-Madrigal, J., Van Cauwenbergh, N., and van der Zaag, P.: Unraveling intractable water conflicts: the entanglement of science and politics in decision-making on large hydraulic infrastructure, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4903–4921, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4903-2020, 2020. In the manuscript we will add a text to redirect these inquiries to this paper. However, to help the reader, we will add a short description of the network of social actors opposing the project.

• “It would be also interesting for the reader to know a little more about the socio-economic and water access situation within the two cities – how does the majority of resident access water? Is water distribution unequal across the city? This would help to better contextualize the discussion – and critique – concerning the focus of the water utilities on non-revenue water, higher tariffs and the choice to invest in augmenting supply. Perhaps a table summarizing the main events in the infrastructural development of the two cities would be helpful for the reader.”

Response: Thank you for the suggestion, we will add additional information in the form of a Table about the socio-economic and water access situation of both cities. We will also reconfigure Figures 2 and 3 to also show a timeline of the main events in the infrastructural development of both cities.

• “For the reader it is a be difficult to follow the presentation of the model results (and table 1). How do you (and the actors involved in the process) conceptualized a “sustainable and socially just urban water system”? Perhaps you could include some of the information currently in the supplementary material in the main text. For instance, few insights on the definition of the indicators, i.e > 95% coverage, would be helpful (p.3 supplementary materials).”

Response: We think that is a very good suggestion. We will briefly elaborate on the indicators of what constitutes a sustainable and socially just urban water system means in the case of the Verde River basin and Guadalajara and León.

• “The research questions/objectives could be moved to the introduction; they are now included in the methodology section (l.161-166).”

Response: We will re-write the introduction and add the research questions in the introduction.

• “In the conclusion the authors write “the trajectories of both cities have been defined by its continuous and unrestrained socio-economic growth” (l. 476) and later on explain that this grow has been promoted by a specific paradigm. Hence, wouldn’t be more accurate – and in line with political ecology analysis – to state that the trajectories of the cities have been defined by a paradigm that promotes population and economic growth?”

Response: Thanks for this valuable comment. In the conclusion we will be more accurate regarding how this sanctioned discourse has defined the cities’ trajectories to better reflect the improved hydrosocial analysis discussed above in the first comment of the reviewer.

“There are few minor comments that I invite the authors to consider:

• 90 ‘supply-demand cycle’ the authors could further introduce what is the ‘supply-demand cycle’ as this is further referred to in the analysis. The study of Kallis referred in the paper is from 2010, not 2008.”

Response: In the revised version we will briefly elaborate what is the ‘supply-demand cycle’. Also thanks for pointing out that typo on the Kallis reference.

• “Interviews are referred to as Pers.comm (l. 395), anonymous interview (l. 402) or simply with the reference to the position of the interviewee (l.420) choose one format for consistency”

Response: In the revised version we will choose one single format to be consistent throughout the manuscript.

• “Several acronyms are not spelled out (PRI, SAPAL, CONAGUA, etc.)”

Response: In the revised version we will spell out these acronyms in the text of the manuscript.

• “Should conagua be capitalized or not? Please check for consistency.”

Response: Thanks for pointing that out. Conagua writes itself as “Conagua” in its own documents, so we follow their same naming convention. There was only one instance in the text where we capitalized CONAGUA, and we will correct it in the revised version.

• “Section 3.2.2 and section 3.2.3. have the same title”

Response: Thanks for pointing that out. The subtitle should have been “Exploring the potential of alternative solutions”. This will be fixed in the revised version.

• “l.255 “social perception” this is quite vague perhaps you could specify whose perception was or use another term such as public perception”

Response: We will change in the revised manuscript the term social perception to public perception.

• “l.51 I am wondering if the potential of alternative solutions is disputed only by water managers or also by wider coalitions including donors’ agencies, financial institutions, local politicians, etc.”

Response: In the revised version of the paper we have further elaborated on this issue with interdisciplinary literature on mega-projects: Allan, 2003, Molle, 2008; Molle et al., 2009, Flyvbjerg, 2003, 2009; Kallis 2010; Di Baldassarre et al., 2018; Boelens et al., 2019.

• “l. 286 please revise. Which project are you talking about here?”

Response: We referred to the Zapotillo project. In the revised version we will specify it.

• “Some of the references are not included in the text (i.e. Hommes et al. 2016)”

Response: Thanks for pointing it out. We have addressed it.

All the authors would like to thank the reviewer for the detailed and in-depth commentary that will improve the quality and impact of the manuscript. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will streamline the paper to make clearer what is our contribution to both socio-hydrology and hydrosocial research. We will explain how we will do so in the specific comments below.

“The article presents a very interesting case study that could provide a novel contribution to the discipline of sociohydrology. In particular, I think that there are sufficient qualitative and quantitative data to advance the concept of “supply-demand cycle” for instance by showing how this phenomenon is deeply intertwined with power dynamics produced and played out at various temporal and spatial scales. In addition, I think that there is space to show how these power dynamics can interfere with the cycle and in the long term, reshape the coevolution of water and society. I personally would like to see similar works published, therefore I encourage the authors to improve their analysis, in order to make their contribution clearer, more visible and therefore more significant. As of now, the paper is still a bit confusing. The authors use and merge together too many concepts, ideas and methods not always in a clear way. As a result, the paper reads more as a report of a professional consultant that touches upon different issues rather than a scientific publication that seeks to contribute to a specific (or more) body of knowledge. Ultimately, I suggest the authors to revise the manuscript so as to redefine what is their main message and their scientific contribution. I hope that my comments will be useful in this respect.

INTRODUCTION

1) Confusing sociohydrological or socioenvironmental problem that this paper addresses. At the moment I am still confused between the following issues:

• The crossroads created within decision making processes that reshape urban water systems;
• The preference for supply augmentation solutions relative to alternative pathways;
• The supply-demand cycle and reservoir effects resulting from water supply augmentation projects.

Even though you can mention all of them, I think that you have to make it clear what is the main issue that you are focusing on in this paper. Once you clarify this, I think that the research gap and the theoretical framework will become clearer to you and the reader.”

Response: Indeed, the manuscript addresses the three topics listed by the reviewer. Our intention is that the first topic, the crossroads in decision making that can reshape urban water systems, to be foregrounded in our analysis. This is supported by arguments based on the preference for supply augmentation and the supply-demand cycle that has defined the trajectory of the urban water systems of León and Guadalajara. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will improve the argumentation efficacy in the introduction and the theoretical framework to make it clearer to the reader.

“2) Unclear research gap. You mention that you want to integrate hydrosocial studies and sociohydrology with development pathways concept but your paper does not show why this is needed. In other words, you do not explain what is the research gap that you are trying to address. I see a potential research gap in this paragraph: “Although the reservoir effect has been documented in many cities….it is still unclear how diverse combination of hydrological, technological, and social factors play a role in accelerating or mitigating the underlying feedback mechanism.”.I think that your valid contribution to sociohydrology could start from here! But then you might want to choose which science provides you the best tools to contribute to sociohydrological literature (see following comments).”

Response: The research gap we want to address is twofold. 1) Our purpose is to unpack the feedback mechanism of the reservoir effect and supply-demand cycle to incorporate water conflicts interfering with the reproduction of the cycle, what we refer as development pathways crossroads. And 2) to methodologically contribute to hydrosocial studies with the use of participatory modelling as a tool to analyse power dynamics between key actors.  

“THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

3) The literature section reads more like another introduction rather than a theoretical section. I think that you cannot just briefly mention the theories you got inspired by and used. In my opinion you have to start engaging with them in a more nuanced way that is also more significant for your research (main issue: see comment 1 and 2).”

Response: We will re-write this section and clarify the research gaps we will address.

“4) The paper is full of different concepts, ideas, and methodologies that belongs to different scientific scholarships,e. development pathways, supply-demand cycle, reservoir effect, sociohydrology studies, hydrosocial theories, action research methodology. Even though I see the reason why the authors are referring to them, I fear that the way these concepts and theories are used and combined in the text is not being beneficial for the paper. It creates confusion and discrepancies in your arguments. If the authors think that it is extremely important to use all these theories, concepts and methodologies together, they have to revise the article and find sufficient space in the text to motivate the use of these theories, concepts, and methodologies, to employ them in the case study, and lastly to show how the case study contribute to the body of knowledge selected. Personally, I would simplify, as the case study is already rich and interesting in itself.”

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. After several discussions with the authors we agreed that we needed to simplify the paper. In the revised manuscript, we will focus our analysis on developing the role of water conflicts and grassroots movements in interfering with the reproduction of the supply-demand cycle and widening the decision space.

“5) Sociohydrology and hydrosocial research are two different bodies of knowledge both focusing on human-water interactions. However, they hinge on two different epistemologies, use different methods, provide different conceptualizations of society as well as of its interactions with water, and lastly, they sometimes reach different conclusions. In your paper this understanding is not clear. Also, at the moment it is still not clear why do you use them. I think that if you want to use these theories you might want to spend more time in explaining what they do and how one can enrich the other (even one paragraph would help).  Probably it might be helpful to answer to the following questions: what is the main sociohydrological system that you are focusing on, what is the main sociohydrological process you want to study? How can sociohydrology help me to describe and study this system and its processes? How will hydrosocial studies enrich or change my understanding of this sociohydrological system and its processes? These questions will help you to define your scientific framework and contribution more clearly. And you might be better able to show (1) what do you use sociohydrology for (in your case you do that by explaining the supply-demand cycle and showing it with data) (2) what are the socio-political dynamics that you are exposing in your case, where do these dynamics originates (historically), and how they reshape human water interactions study at which scale.”

Response: We are aware of the different epistemologies that constitute socio-hydrology and hydrosocial studies. However, we understand that perhaps we were not clear in explaining the differences and how we could contribute to each other. We will briefly address that in the revised manuscript. On the questions raised: “what is the main sociohydrological system that you are focusing on, what is the main sociohydrological process you want to study?” We are focusing our analysis on the supply-demand cycle present in the urban water systems of Guadalajara and León.

To the question of “How can sociohydrology help me to describe and study this system and its processes?” We chose socio-hydrology, because it can help us analyse the supply-demand cycle in both cities and the potential reservoir effect derived from the Zapotillo project. By focusing on the increase in population and water use as well as with the socio-political factors, we can argue how the Zapotillo project will probably increase water demand. We further argue that our contribution to socio-hydrology is the conceptualization of water conflicts and grassroots movements as a heterogenous social response which has not yet been explored in the consulted literature.

To the question of  “How will hydrosocial studies enrich or change my understanding of this sociohydrological system and its processes?” With hydrosocial research we will analyse in the revised manuscript how power dynamics and sanctioned discourses influence the trajectories of each urban water system. Through our participatory modelling workshops, we will highlight the power dynamics of stakeholders to perpetuate supply-side strategies to the detriment of alternative technical solutions. Furthermore, participatory modelling contributes to analyzing power dynamics within the technical decision space in a unique way by enabling key actors in the conflict visualize scenarios with different infrastructural configurations.

“6) Limited literature review of main theories used. Di Baldassare is indeed a prominent author and one of the first that contributed to the discipline yet beside the work of the reservoir effects (Di Baldassarre et al., 2018), there are also other works/authors that you might want to explore and eventually cite. (Di Bladassarre et al., 2017; Kuil et al., 2016; Garcia et al., 2016; 2020; Gohari et al., 2013; Madani and Shafiee-Jood, 2020; Sivapalan et al., 2012; 2014, etc.). I can make the same comment for the hydrosocial researchers you cite. Besides Jamie Linton work (which indeed used the term hydrosocial for the first time). There might be other authors that discuss hydrosocial conflict, contestation, discursive construction of scarcity, etc. that would be a good fit to support your paper/case study. (Hommes, Boelens and Maat, 2016; Palomino-Schalscha et al., 2016; Boelens, Shah and Bruins, 2019; Budds, J., 2016; Lopez et al., 2019; Duarte-Abadía et al., 2015, Zwarteveen and Boelens, 2014; Zwarteveen et al., 2017; Swyngedouw, 2009, etc).”

Response: We will read the suggested literature and include those that we think pertinent in the revised version of the manuscript.

“7) You use the Leach et al. (2010) development pathways concept. But, you do not clearly explain why and what do you use it for. (Is it for defining the main issue that you are describing in your case study? Is it to find a way to combine sociohydrology and hydrosocial studies? Is it to explain and justify your methodology?) I think that if you want to use it as lenses or main framework you have to further explain this concept and its theoretical background (especially for an audience that is not acquainted with the term) whilst at the same time also motivating the reason why you want to use it, the methodological choices it will imply and its limitations.”

8) Linked to the previous point: Melissa Leach is not a hydrosocial nor a sociohydrological scholar. Her work fits better within the Socio Ecological Systems (SES) theory. In my view her ideas and theoretical framework reflect Elinor Ostrom political and institutional theories. How do you justify this choice? What is SES offering that hydrosocial theories or sociohydrology are not? I think that you have to choose which theory fits better (between sociohydrology, hydrosocial and socio ecological systems) to examine your case study. Or else be able to explain the added value of each theory on the examination of your case study. Again, the suggestion is to simplify and make it clear where do you stand.”

Response to comments 7 & 8: Thank you for these relevant comments. We understand that our choice to engage with Leach’s approach may be perceived as a surprise, especially when considering the richness of socio-hydrology and hydrosocial studies. After reading her book (Leach et al., 2010), we were inspired to understand the Zapotillo conflict in relation to the trajectory of Guadalajara and Leon in a more integrated interdisciplinary way.

We respectfully disagree that Leach’s approach can be inscribed into the theoretical framework of E. Ostrom. The latter has been criticized for not engaging with politics and power dynamics, but instead offer a depoliticized view on rules and institutions.[1] Conversely, Leach et al. (2010), incorporate different approaches such as systems thinking (which is close to the epistemology of socio-hydrology) and social justice (which is close to the axiology and epistemology of hydrosocial studies). Although indeed, Melissa Leach incorporates the work of Ostrom, especially in relation to designing institutions capable of designing governance arrangements, she does so in the face of uncertainties (systems thinking) and social justice (hydrosocial studies). In this way, Leach´s interdisciplinary methodology fits well into the emerging literature that engages in finding ways to make compatible the methodologies and epistemologies of natural and social sciences as reflected in the recent work of Kaika & Di Baldassarre (2019)[2].

In particular, we were inspired by the reading of Leach et al. (2010) and their understanding of the decision space in dynamic complex situations. If power asymmetries can “close down ways of understanding and responding to dynamic, complex situations”, then there must be other ways of “opening up and broadening out analysis and action” through empowering designs. These methodologies, of which we consider participatory modelling one of them, “aim at eliciting and highlighting marginalized narratives and thus exposing and exploring hidden pathways.”

Nevertheless, we appreciate these points brought up by the reviewer to increase the clarity of our use of Leach’s approach in the revised version of the manuscript.

“9) In your theoretical section you also mention transdisciplinary, yet this choice comes a bit as a surprise especially considering that you do not define what do you mean with transdisciplinary, nor the reason why you need it. Maybe you should focus on that, instead of providing too much details that are not useful to your argumentation. Again, make a choice, prioritize and simplify.”

Response: We understand and appreciate this point. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will streamline our argumentation.

“METHODOLOGY

10) Unclear case study: In the case study you provide a very detailed description of the geographical characteristics of the area where the Zapotillo project will (or will not) take place. My first and minor problem with that is the inclusion of the detailed description of the case study before the methodology is been described. This is confusing and does not read well. In this section I will just mention that you use a case study, motivate the reason why you selected this case and detail the methods you are going to use to answer to address your research gap (qualitative, quantitative, action research etc.). My second problem is that you seem to choose the Zapotillo project as a case study and then you perform a historical analysis of Leon and Guadalajara sociohydrological systems. I see where this come from (links are visible) but it creates confusion. I personally think that this confusion stems from the comment I wrote above in the Introduction section i.e. the fact that you do not define clearly what is the main focus of your work. I give you an example: If the focus was the supply-demand cycle, the case studies would have been Leon and Guadalajara. If the main issue was the (allow me the term) “Crossroads”, then the case study would have been the Zapotillo project and the different conflicts generated by the project itself. Try to clarify first the objective/focus and there redefine the case study.”

Response: We realize that the case study sub-section might have been confusing. Our intention was to provide some background information to fully understand the crossroads of Guadalajara and Leon. Definitely the focus of our analysis are the trajectories of the cities, but especially in the crucial relation with the Zapotillo project, which has mobilized narratives and networks of actors to either continue the pathway or change it. Therefore, we think is not possible to develop the concept of crossroads without recurring to analyzing the supply-demand cycle In Guadalajara and Leon. In the revised version of the manuscript, we will make it clearer what is the focus of the case.

“11) The methodology is described as a list of data used and activities performed. I think that it would be much more useful to define the scientific method with something like: “In this paper we perform a inter or transdisciplinary exercise that merges qualitative and quantitative assessment of socioenvironmental processes in order to be able to understand and visualize the (long term) water-power dynamics etc….” Maybe here you could also explain the reason why you want to choose transdisciplinary rather than interdisciplinary or disciplinary methods.”

Response: We think this is a good suggestion to improve the paper. We will transfer some of the details of our methodology to the supplementary material to give more space to a more important discussion of transdisciplinarity and interdisciplinarity.

“12) Is there a model/participatory modelling? Even if you mention the use of a model, to me this model seems still a ghost, because it is there but that I cannot see it. I do not know what is the model about, is it about numerical modelling or scenarios development? In my understanding, a (numerical) model is a numerical translation of a narrative or theory. Yet in your case I do not see any numerical model explained. My suggestion is thus to simplify also here, using the right term (scenarios development?) and explain clearly in the methodology why you chose this method (participatory scenarios development?) and how you will perform and analyse the result.”

Response: According to Basco-Carrera et al. (2017),[3] they define participatory modelling as a “generic set of approaches [that] emphasize the importance of involving stakeholders in a modelling process.” They argue that the main components of participatory modelling are water resources planning, negotiation, computer-based models and stakeholder participation. Moreover, in the socio-hydrological jargon, according to Mostert (2018),[4] the model we developed can be defined as an exploratory toy model. To advance socio-hydrology, this kind of models “can be used to generate possible explanations of observed phenomena, provided the model is actually played with, e.g. different parameter values and tried out.” We think these arguments warrant our use of the term Participatory modelling.

In the revised version of the manuscript we will address this concern and justify our choice of naming our methodology participatory modelling.

“RESULTS

13) Is it a reservoir effect? I think you have to be very careful with the term you use. If I am correct, reservoir effect occurs when reservoirs simultaneously secure water availability and increase the community’s dependence on water infrastructure, resulting in higher vulnerability to, and impacts from, future droughts or water shortages. In your case more than a reservoir effect I see a supply-demand cycle. Both Leon and Guadalajara use different water sources for their supply: weirs, groundwater and dams, and not only reservoirs. I would encourage you to verify and be more precise in describing these phenomena.”

Response: In the case of Leon, the reviewer is right. Since the city is dependent on groundwater, is not possible to have a reservoir effect. However, for the case of Guadalajara, and its dependence on Lake Chapala and Calderon dam, the city has become more dependent on the water infrastructure that transfers water from these reservoirs to the city. And several droughts have originated an increased vulnerability by experiencing water shortages depicted in Figure 3. We further argue that, with the Zapotillo project, the reservoir effect will be more pronounced in the case of Guadalajara and start experience it in the case of Leon.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we will be more precise in describing the phenomena by taking into account the other sources of water of Guadalajara and Leon.

“14) A bit more of political economy? I personally liked the way you retraced the history of Leon and Guadalajara water supply and consumption alongside relating with the urban development of the two cities. I think that if this is going to be the main focus of your work you might want to expand more on the political-economy of the two cities. Who benefited of these developments? Who lost? Since when these power dynamics are in place? Is there any legacy from the past? Is it worth mentioning this legacy?”

Response: In the revised version of the manuscript, we will streamline our description of the trajectories of Leon and Guadalajara to expand on the hydrosocial analysis taking into account the pertinent questions suggested by the reviewer.

“15) I think that a storyline (graph) would be nice. Or you could even merge the water consumption and water supply graph with major historical decision, etc.”

Response: We thought this was a good suggestion and decided to incorporate to Figure 1 and 2 the major historical decisions of both cities.

“16) I am not sure about the scenario development. The way it is written is very chaotic, it includes too many details that are not very useful for the reader and it has no clear conclusions. My question for you is: are you really interested in the result or in the quotes that the participants said whilst you were doing the workshop? In my opinion these are the real results more that the workshop itself. Their quotes, ideas, tensions developed during the workshop might show you what are the power dynamics, what are the obstacles, who has more power, which alternative is possible or not and why. Personally, I am not interested in how you conducted the workshop (this could be placed in the supplementary material) but I am interested more in what the workshop was able to reveal about the local power dynamics! My suggestion is to rewrite it differently cutting and showing the qualitative data.”

Response: After careful deliberation between the authors, we have agreed that the results and details of the scenario development are less relevant for our argumentation. Therefore, we will focus on how participatory modelling can elicit the power dynamics between the key actors in the conflict to define what are feasible alternatives (decision space) to bring about water security in Guadalajara and Leon.

“DISCUSSION

17)  I liked line 477-480”

Response: Thanks.

“18) Issues with argument (1): I am not convinced about what you wrote on line 498-499. More than your argument this explain a power dynamic, otherwise known as discursive production of scarcity. Maybe you could use this to build up your arguments but not state that this is your argument.”

Response: We will take this into account in our revised version of the  manuscript.

“19) Issues with argument (2): I see and agree with the fact that there is a supply-demand cycle but I am yet unable to clearly see what are the additional power-dynamics that you have identified and the manner in which they modify the framework of Di Baldassarre et al., 2018.”

Response: We argue that water conflicts driven by grassroots movements are not sufficiently acknowledged, much less incorporated in socio-hydrology. Our aim is to explore how a grassroots movement should be considered as part of the heterogeneity of societal responses in the supply-demand cycle and reservoir effect phenomena. This case shows how a water conflict driven by a grassroots movement may have the potential to interfere in the supply-demand cycle and prevent the reservoir effect. In that way, our study takes part of the numerous hydrosocial studies that seek to incorporate power and heterogeneity in socio-hydrology.

“20) Issues with argument (3): Related to the above point I cannot understand figure 4 and I do not know if it is really useful as it is. Did you built this figure based on the workshop or based on your how qualitative and historical analysis? How do the power dynamics that you have identified change the water supply cycle, more or less water consumption, more or less water exploitation? Again, my suggestion is to simplify it and make sure that you show (more clearly) how certain power dynamics can modify the supply-demand cycle (show if they intensify them or not and explain how and why). At the moment I do not understand therefore I cannot agree with the updated causal loop.”

Response: We built Figure 4 based on our qualitative and historical analysis, but also on the scenario exploration of our water resources model. We will simplify Figure 4 to highlight how the water conflict, driven by the grassroots movement interferes with the supply-demand cycle by indefinitely postponing the Zapotillo project, and its associated increase in water demand.

“21) Issue with scientific contribution. In my opinion it is still not clear what contribute to what. Is it hydrosocial research that helps unravelling power dynamics? Is it the Development Pathway concept that enrich sociohydrology? Or is it the use of action-research? I think that the authors might need to prioritise what contribute to what and how.”

Response: Our contributions to hydrosocial studies is using participatory modelling as a tool to elicit power dynamics in contexts of water conflicts, and to socio-hydrology our contribution is theoretical by advancing the concept of supply-demand cycle in relation to water conflicts and development pathways crossroads.

“MINOR COMMENTS

• Line 27-28 In your statement it seems that all supply-augmentation projects are bad.

Response: We mention that supply augmentation projects are regarded as the main strategy, and its shortfalls are disregarded. We disagree that this statement implies that all supply augmentation projects are bad. We imply that these projects are often unquestioned by water managers.

• Line 128 Path dependencies and lock in: these two concepts are not introduced anywhere and it is unclear what you are referring to.

Response: We will correct this in the revised version of the paper.

• Line 233: What do you mean with depoliticized strategy. It sound weird to me that they have used this word.

Response: We will make this sentence clearer on the revised version of the paper. It refers to the political use of water services by local governments, in which decision making is based on political considerations rather than technical. When the new administration of Leon’s water utility takes over, they aim at depoliticizing decisionmaking to consider only technical considerations. We will make this clearer on the revised version of the manuscript.

• Line 243 PRI acronym

Response: We will add the full name of the acronym on the revised version of the manuscript.

• Line 265: Great quote.

Response:  Thanks.

• Line 294-296 The sentence/statement is unclear.

Response: We will improve this statement in the revised version of the manuscript. What is meant is that the effects of the supply-demand cycle of the Zapotillo project will not curb groundwater overexploitation.

• Figure 3: Water use or water supply?

Response: Water supply. We will correct this on the revised version of the manuscript.

• Line 364 and 369: social actors is a bit vague

Response: We will replace this with grassroots movement.

• Line 403: Here you start a completely different section for me. Suggestion is to either do another section or (what I would do) restructure this section by removing the detail of the workshop and including the quotes so as to show and highlight other power dynamics, actors, influence etc.

Response: We will restructure this section to highlight the interaction between actors during the workshop.

• Try to use simple words. I understand your willingness to be more sophisticated but it might be risky. Sometime I was not sure what you wanted to say, for instance line 11: lackluster, line 19: stymie, line 16: sever water insecurity; line 30: laid out on a spreadsheet; line 58: intractable water conflict; line 503 rift. My suggestion here is keep it simple.

Response: We will take it into consideration in the revised version of the manuscript.

• Figure 4: simplify revise and make cleared what are the effects of your new added line (see comment n. 20)

Response: We will take it into consideration in the way we explained in comment n. 20 in the revised version of the manuscript.

• The figures have errors and the line look sometimes confusing. Try to improve their quality, check the text.

Response: We will improve the quality of the Figures.

• In general, English is ok but you can try to be even more straightforward.”

Response: We will streamline our wording where necessary.