The Manuscript titled “On the hydrological significance of rock glaciers: A case study from Murtèl rock glacier (Engadine, eastern Swiss Alps) using below-ground energy-flux measurements, ground-ice melt observations and hydrological measurements” provides an overview of the large dataset being collected at the rock glacier. The authors provide interpretation of 2 years of data to provide insights towards the processes controlling the storage and release of water. This paper is certainly of interest to the mountain hydrology community. But, there does not seem to be anything new that is being learned (which is OK). The authors do a great job of relating the work to the broader body of knowledge. However, the title and framing of the article seem a little misleading to me. I thought that it was going to be a broad overview of the hydrologic relevance that forms a new conceptual model for rock glacier hydrology. Instead, this is a solid case study for a single rock glacier and a robust dataset. And that’s OK, I think this would make a great data paper or single case study, but it just needs to be framed like that (start with a change to the title). I think that rock glacier hydrology reviews already exist (with some cited in the current manuscript) and I don’t see anything “new” in this one.  Some additional reviews that further support the conclusions of the current manuscript that are not cited:

Kenner R, Pruessner L, Beutel J, Limpach P, Phillips M. How rock glacier hydrology, deformation velocities and ground temperatures interact: Examples from the Swiss Alps. Permafrost and Periglac Process. 2020; 31: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2023

Bearzot, N. Colombo, E. Cremonese, U. Morra di Cella, E. Drigo, M. Caschetto, S. Basiricò, G.B. Crosta, P. Frattini, M. Freppaz, P. Pogliotti, F. Salerno, A. Brunier, M. Rossini, Hydrological, thermal and chemical influence of an intact rock glacier discharge on mountain stream water, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 876, 2023, doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162777.

These comments are meant to be constructive. I would like to emphasize that I really like this manuscript, and with a little different packaging it will be an excellent paper. I just don’t think it fits what the authors were originally going for. 

One other point is that it is difficult for a conceptual model to be derived from only these two years of data. I think this is a great start, but something should be mentioned about the need for more years of data to better constrain the conclusions made here to ensure these 2 years were not anomalous for the weather conditions observed.

Minor points listed by line number:

15: this 13% of annual precipitation and outflow is odd to me. Could you separate precip. And outflow somehow? Maybe “ ~13% of annual precipitation becomes refrozen and ground ice that melts to become outflow”… or something similar.

19: The 50 mm is not 10 times smaller than the 150-300 mm values mentioned earlier. Am I mis-reading this?

111-119: This paragraph seems to be more fit in the study site description.

Section 2.2 seems a bit too long and could be shortened.

211-213: This doesn't seem like a complete sentence, let along a stand-alone paragraph.

234: “CHECK!!” Please proof the manuscript for typos and missing references.

342: Why are you only analyzing 2 years? Much of these instruments have been in place since 2009 correct? Why not a longer analysis? Perhaps listing what years some of these instruments were installed could clarify this.

Fig. 4 & 5: what are the horizontal dashed lines in Discharge and Temp.?

369: The 8 gaugings seemed to happen mostly in the lower discharges. I would recommend trying to get some higher flows as well to better constrain the stage-Q relation.

384: “is” should be “are”

531-532: this last sentence seems odd and out of place.

596-597: similar comment before about being more clear for the “outflow and precipitation”

603-604: OK, makes sense. But, how much of the core is melting? I know this is really difficult to obtain, but some estimate could really help for any aquifer recharge or groundwater resources estimate to complete the hydrologic relevance of the paper.

616-617: This all makes complete sense, but I think you should also discuss the future need to determine the subsurface pathways for these sources.