The research work is impressive and useful. The presentation of the work needs improvement to make the knowledge accessible and citeable. The reviews were helpful and it looks like the authors made many improvements. However, from the authors' response to the reviewers' comments, it is often impossible to see what changes you made. You need to indicate in your response how you changed it. You can copy-paste your corrections from the manuscript in the response or you can indicate the line numbers of the corrections and add a manuscript with track changes. I have a few additional comments that need to be addressed.

General comments
(1) Add a section in the Methods Section that explains the calibration, validation and model application (model parameters, objective functions, events). Specify the time interval of the data used for RMSE. Remove methods from the Results Section.

(2) Describe the selection of model input data (e.g., use of data from Figure 3 and Literature, e.g., l.224-238) in a section in the Methods.

(3) Deliverables of the BINGO project are grey literature. Try to limit references to grey literature as much as possible. Add Supplementary information instead, as also requested by RC1 (GC2).

(4) Put reference to the BINGO project in the acknowledgements, not in the scientific manuscript.

(5) I would strongly suggest to add you data sets in ZENODO and add a reference to these data sets (you will be the author).

Specific comments
l.88-93: Specify when the sensors and samplers were installed and operational.

l.99: potential oxygen reduction - please explain how this is measured.

l.122-123: The model simulates rainfall-runoff processes, domestic and other types of sewage water produced …
Specify that only the rainfall-runoff processes are used for this application.

l.175-176: Don’t repeat the table in the text, either use a table or use text. (See also RC1, SC10).

l.180: simulating

l.213-217: Manual calibration also belongs in the Methods. Specify what is calibrated (which parameters are changed) and why would this not affect the results. You want to make sure that it “did not affect” instead of “would not affect”.

I am looking forward to receiving an improved response to the comments of the reviewers and to the above comments!

I would like to thank the authors for their careful corrections and improvements of the manuscript. They can now submit the final revised manuscript for publication, with the below edits and technical corrections.
l.178: hidrologic -> hydrologic
l.179: 2 -> two
Fig 7: Please correct date on x-axes
The BINGO deliverables can be referenced as a report with names of all authors (see author guidelines) and cited in the text with FirstAuthor et al.