Overall, a well written paper that makes a clear case for the value of high spatial resolution rain fall measurements from personal weather stations. The authors have made well justified decisions in their data analysis.

Major comment:

The spatial sequence of rainfall during the flooding event is not clearly shown with the existing Figures. It is hard for the reader to relate the time series shown in Fig 5 and Fig 6a to the big picture of how the event unfolded. Suggest add a multi-panel plot that shows the sequence of maps of average rainfall in each catchment for shorter time intervals than the storm total ones shown in Figure 6b-d. Perhaps 3 or 4 hour time intervals and use the PWS and AEMET combined data. If use 4 hours as time interval, it would be 4 subplots maps, hours 4-7, hours 8-11, hours 12-15, hours 16-19 would cover nearly all of the period of interest. Discussion of this new figure would complement discussion of the warning timeline in Section 5.5.

Minor comments:

Suggest change title to: “Torrential rainfall in Valencia, Spain recorded by personal weather stations preceding and during the 24 October 2024 floods” (i.e. remove parentheses)

Overuse and misuse of conjunctions like “However” and “Nevertheless”.  For example, line 181: ”However, the timing of the peaks and the rainfall depth varied within this region.” Better would be “The timing of the peaks and the rainfall depth varied within this region.” since authors are not contradicting previous sentence.

Line 42: Suggest add a sentence as part of this paragraph. Especially in mountainous areas, radar beams can be blocked over areas of interest.

Caption for Table 1: For clarity please change “Mean discharge and peak discharge for gauge ID1, ID2, ID3…” to  “Mean discharge and mean yearly peak discharge for gauges ID1, ID2, ID3…”

Line 140, if this is the correct interpretation, suggest change “the nugget is assumed to be negligible” to “the nugget is assumed to be zero”

Line 215, please cite reference for Hortonian overland flow

Line 324-328, for clarity suggest revise “However, selecting smaller catchment areas would increase the uncertainty in the interpolated rainfall estimates based on point measurements, particularly for areas with no or only a few rain gauges. Rainfall estimates from weather radars can mitigate these gaps. Additionally, these delinations do not necessarily match the upstream areas of streamflow gauges. Nevertheless, given the unavailability of of high temporal resolution discharge time series, this is not a limitation for this study.”

To  “Selecting smaller catchment areas would increase the uncertainty in the interpolated rainfall estimates based on point measurements, particularly for areas with no or only a few rain gauges. Additionally, smaller catchment areas would not necessarily match the upstream areas of streamflow gauges.”  [not clear how the Nevertheless sentence relates to the rest of the paragraph so suggest taking it out].

Line 337. As a reader I got confused by this paragraph:

“The Poyo catchment, is characterized by an ephemeral stream, as it primarily depends on rainfall (Camarasa-Belmonte, 2016). This streamflow-gauge is not included in the EStreams database employed in this study. However, the mean and maximum specific peak flow for 37 flash flood events in this catchment, occurring between 1989 and 2007, were 16 and 246 mmd−1, respectively (Camarasa-Belmonte, 2016). Compared to this average peak flow, the recorded discharge on the 29th and 30th with147 and 433 mm d−1 is approximately 9 and 27 times higher, respectively. The average discharge on the 30th with 433 mm d−1 is significantly higher (1.75 times) compared to the maximum peak flow in this period. However, due to the short duration of the historical record used in Camarasa-Belmonte (2016) (18-years), no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the rarityof this event.”

Some points of confusion:

“This streamflow-gauge is not included in the EStreams database employed in this study.” Since streamflow-gauge is included in Table 1 as ID4, I think you mean in terms of computing mean and mean yearly peak.

It is not clear what numbers are being referred to and where it is coming from for the “average discharge” and “maximum peak flow in this period”.

Suggest revise to read:

“The Poyo catchment, is characterized by an ephemeral stream, as it primarily depends on rainfall (Camarasa-Belmonte, 2016). For 37 flash flood events in this catchment occurring between 1989 and 2007, the mean was 16 mm d−1 and maximum specific peak flow was 246 mm d−1 (Camarasa-Belmonte, 2016). The daily recorded discharges from the Poyo catchment on the October 29th and 30^th of 147 and 433 mm d−1 are approximately 9 and 27 times higher, respectively (Table 1). Due to the short duration of the historical record used in Camarasa-Belmonte (2016) (18-years), no definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding the rarity of this event.”

see attached.