This is a very interesting paper presenting a modeling approach aimed at showing how the coupling between dissolution, transport in fracture formations, and horizontal head forms a low-karstified rock-blocks which prevent water seepage, up to a threshold of head difference between reservoirs. I very much like the approach, the results, and the layout of the article, and I can see how it will be well suited to HESS. However, three aspects require attention in this study:

1. The authors heavily rely on jargon and assume that specific terms and mechanisms are known to the reader. This limits the impact of this study as it targets a narrow readership while overlooking HESS's broad readership. I outlined a few examples and ways to rectify this aspect in the detailed review below.
2. This work lacks some crucial aspects of the model. This complex model involves multiple processes over extended spatial and temporal scales, yet fundamental elements of this model are absent. What is the grid size and layout, and what is its sensitivity? Was there a convergence test for it? Was the model's sensitivity to key parameters assessed? The authors mention the stability of the solution but provide no data on it. The modeling aspect requires more than just the equations used and their sequence; a clear section in the paper or an appendix should present these essential components of the model. 
3. The authors take an engineering approach to the results of their model, which is noteworthy as they draw a specific and tangible conclusion from it. However, the coupling between the transport and reactive mechanisms is a fundamental nucleation phenomenon, where the boundaries lead to an anisotropic, directional change. This phenomenon is observed in other experimental and numerical dissolution processes, where fingers or preferential flows emerge by this coupling (partial list: (Detwiler & Rajaram, 2007; Dijk et al., 2002; Edery et al., 2021; Kang et al., 2003; Molins et al., 2014; Nogues et al., 2013; Rege & Fogler, 1989; Shavelzon & Edery, 2022; Singurindy & Berkowitz, 2003)). Yet this is not referred to in this work, limiting its potential to draw a more general audience and a more general conclusion. These three aspects are echoed in the specific comments below, and I believe that while the last aspect may improve the paper, the first two are essential. Specific comments are outlined as follows:

Introduction: The authors make an excellent case supporting their approach in the introduction, yet it will be beneficial to relate each aspect that is either added or missing in previous studies to the figure 1 illustration, thus providing a conceptual picture of the processes at hand.      

Line 22: “One of the primary issues is the intensification of the natural karstification process due to artificial hydraulic gradients, which can result in persistent and uncontrollable leakage throughout the structure's lifespan”

This sentence exemplifies the narrow focus of the paper. In the second sentence of the introduction, we encounter jargon that is not properly explained. We have no idea what the artificial part is in these hydraulic gradients and why it leads to “persistent and uncontrollable leakage.” I suspect that not all potential readers remember exactly what the “karstification process” is. HESS aims at a broad readership; therefore, an effort should be made to address this broad readership by thoroughly explaining the terms and concepts.

Introducing Figure 1 earlier and including additional features, such as the permeability linked to fracture aperture changes and the chemical gradients that shape the LKB zone, can help rectify this. The latter will significantly aid in clarifying the cause-and-effect relationship that the authors seek to establish in their work. This approach will give readers a conceptual framework from the outset and elucidate the terms and concepts of the study. 

Line 69: Explain what epikarst is.

Line 71: Not sure “aggressive” is clear in this context.

Line 87: Explain what “speleogenesis” is.

Line 95: add a space after “(4)”

While the criteria for transitioning between equations 1 and 2 are clear, the actual continuous transition between equations 1 and 2 or vice versa is not clear. How do we continuously transition from the laminar to the turbulent approximation without discontinuities in the flux? The flux mass balance presented in Eq. 4 should also be addressed in this context.

Addendum: at the end of the paper, we learn that equation 2 was not used throughout the simulations (or so I understood from the following sentence: “Turbulent flow did not occur throughout the simulations initiated with natural, original fractures.”). If that is the case, why present it?

Line 121: Is Figure 2 an illustration, actual layout, or sub-layout of the fractured domain? Also, the dimensions are critical in understanding the model framework (Reynolds number, head differences, etc.). Referring to boundary, seepage, and head without their dimensions seems inadequate.

Section 2.2.2: Please refer to Figure 2 when explaining the necessary steps in finding the water table.

Section 2.3: The “H₂O-CO₂-CaCO₃” system is heavily influenced by pH. Although the CO₂ concentration can provide an approximation, this is only valid within a limited range of pH values. Please address this aspect. 

Furthermore, a convective approach for the laminar case must approximate the reactant depletion as it reaches the fracture surface by some rate law. Since eq. 9-11 do not consider the fracture thickness b_{ij} while the illustration in figure 3 does, I am a bit confused about this matter. Please provide clarity on this aspect.

Line 182: Is the mass removal term converted to a volume change from which the b_{ij} is updated? If so, what is the conversion constant from moles to volume?

Line 204: Correct grammar in “These analyses”

Figure 4: While we agree on the analytical solution deviation, the magnitude of the deviation between the numerical value and the analytical solution is around 50%, which necessitates further elaboration on why it is so large. 

Section 2.4.2: It’s hard to understand how well the model performs since we do not have any specific case to compare it to, aside from the analytical solution, which we established as inadequate. How can we be sure that the model works as it should? In terms of numerical analysis, there is no mention of grid size sensitivity, convergence, or stability of the numerical code, which are standard practices. The authors should present these aspects of the code so that we can appreciate it accordingly. 

 Line 218: “on the both sides” should be “on both sides”

Line 219: “…the algorithm performed well in modeling the water table in heterogeneous network.” Well, compared to what? These statements appear throughout the paper, yet they are not supported by any comparison or measurement that helps us understand what “well” means. The only reference is to the ill-fitted analytical solution. 

Table 1: What are the dimensions of the directional term? Angle?

Additionally, the mean length of the fractures is quite large. Is this realistic? Why was this length chosen? It appears that ten well-connected fractures may dominate the simulation.

Line 252: Please clarify the term “evolution time step.”

Line 255, figure 8 caption: What does “ka” stand for? I’m assuming it refers to time, but no dimensions have been provided. This should be clarified in Figure 8, not Figure 10. Additionally, the heat map for the aperture could be confused with the head heat map. It is unclear whether it is necessary.

Section 3.3: In this section, the authors relate the change in aperture to the location of the aquifer, as evident in Figure 11, and also relate the change in flux in a similar manner. However, the cause and effect suggest that the higher potential near the boundaries dictates higher fluxes, and as the flux increases, so does the reaction rate, which widens the aperture. This is a nucleation phenomenon observed in many studies on dissolution, specifically in the context of permeable structures.

Line 295: I find the K calculation very interesting. To begin with, the fact that there is only dissolution in this setup means that the LKB is a “residual” permeability, indicating that while some permeabilities have increased, the LKB remained unchanged. However, the K is calculated directly for a subsection, and figure 12, as well as a close examination of figure 8, shows that there is an anisotropic change in the aperture, where horizontal fractures experience more dissolution than the vertical fractures. This also leads to the formation of the LKB and the observed changes in flux. However, this structural anisotropy is not discussed or quantified in this context, although it is clear that the horizontal head difference drives the anisotropy. This emergence of anisotropy can be found in many studies on rock dissolution, where preferential flows arise due to these boundary conditions coupled with reactive transport. As this emergent behavior appears in similar fields, the connection should be made among them. 

Detwiler, L. R., & Rajaram, H. (2007). Predicting dissolution patterns in variable aperture fractures: Evaluation of an enhanced depth-averaged computational model. Water Resour. Res., 43, W04403, doi:10.1029/2006WR005147.

Dijk, P. E., Berkowitz, B., & Yechieli, Y. (2002). Measurement and analysis of dissolution patterns in rock fractures. Water Resour. Res., 38, doi:10.1029/2001WR000246.

Edery, Y., Stolar, M., Porta, G., & Guadagnini, A. (2021). Feedback mechanisms between precipitation and dissolution reactions across randomly heterogeneous conductivity fields. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 1–14.

Kang, Q., Zhang, D., & Chen, S. (2003). Simulation of dissolution and precipitation in porous media. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 108(B10).

Molins, S., Trebotich, D., Yang, L., Ajo-Franklin, J. B., Ligocki, T. J., Shen, C., & Steefel, C. I. (2014). Pore-scale controls on calcite dissolution rates from flow-through laboratory and numerical experiments. Environmental Science & Technology, 48(13), 7453–7460.

Nogues, J. P., Fitts, J. P., Celia, M. A., & Peters, C. A. (2013). Permeability evolution due to dissolution and precipitation of carbonates using reactive transport modeling in pore networks. Water Resources Research, 49(9), 6006–6021.

Rege, S. D., & Fogler, H. S. (1989). Competition among flow, dissolution, and precipitation in porous media. Am. In. Chem. Eng., 35(7), 1177� – 1185.

Shavelzon, E., & Edery, Y. (2022). Modeling of Reactive Transport in Porous Rock: Influence of Peclet Number, EGU22-8059. https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu22-8059

Singurindy, O., & Berkowitz, B. (2003). Evolution of hydraulic conductivity by precipitation and dissolution in carbonate rock. Water Resour. Res., 39(1), W1016, doi:10.1029/2001WR001055.

The authors present an interesting methodology to model karst evolution due to flow, transport and the dissolution within a fracture network, below a fluctuating water table. Although the approach is mainly presented within a limited context of dams and reservoirs, such modeling approach could be useful in a much wider context as well. I think the paper could be a valuable contribution to the journal, it is well written and easy to follow.

I have a few recommendations that would improve the text:

General comments:

- While the individual steps of the modeling are mostly well presented, I would find useful to have an overview of the whole modeling process. In my opinion a flowchart would greatly help the methodology section.

One thing I found confusing is  the mixing of terms inner-outer iterations, steps - it was difficult to follow which steps happen within a single timestep etc. Using a flowchart could easily alleviate this issue, and would give a good entry point to the modelling process.

- How would you validate such modeling approach? Do you see a potential to compare the results with field measurements? Or did you consider validating the individual modelled processes against other modeling approaches?

I think such validation would be an important step for presenting such new methodology.

It would also be interesting to see, how the modeling results compare against other methods (such as equivalent porous media, or a static DFN model).

- In general, I think there are too many figures in the manuscript, and many of them could be moved to the supplements. Fewer figures with less information, would better highlight the interesting results from the modeling.

Specific comments:

L30: The concept of LKB is very important for this paper, but this explanation is too short for it. Please explain it better.

L35: "The patter of groundwater flow in water divide areas also suggest the possibility of an LKB in karst aquifer." - why?

L50 onwards: this is a very good motivation for the paper

L90: all these steps happen within one timestep>

L128: Does this mean you are aiming for a steady state within the iterations?

L147: what does middle iterations mean?

L149: a flowchart would be great here

L150: What does layer-by-layer mean here? This part in general is quite confusing

L188: What does homogeneous mean here? Are you verifying against an equivalent porous media model?

L213: More details about the high-performance platform is needed (CPU type)

L227: This section is unclear to me. Are we talking about in the dam or somewhere else? What is a karst reservoir in this context?

L235: This is a very good case study site for the approach.

Table 1: How did you choose the parameters?

L251: How did you choose the simulation length?

Figure 9: These plots a bit confusing, can you rotate them so the x-y plane is vertical?

L272: "The water table..." - This sentence is unclear

Fig. 10-11-12: I see a lot of redundancy in these figures, are they all important? Consider moving some of them to the supplements.

L347: "Considering..." - elaborate this statement more

Where do you see here the link between the model and the real case? How could the model be used in this specific setting?

L366: this section title is unclear to me.