Dear Benjamin Winter, Klaus Schneeberger and Sergiy Vorogushyn.

Thank you again for your submission of “Event generation for probabilistic flood risk modelling: multi-site peak flow dependence model vs weather generator based approach” to NHESS.
As you know, two reviewers have now provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. However, in few you only respond to the comment but did not indicate to address these topics in the manuscript. Therefore, I kindly ask you to re-consider this because the reader may have the same questions as the reviewer. Both reviewers recommended minor revisions (although I have a feeling some of the revisions suggested are not so minor--they may take a bit of time!), and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript.

Would you please also provide an ‘author’s reply’ to the reviewers (feel free to use the same words that you used in what you have already uploaded). Please can you also include a track changes document between the old manuscript and the new one (you can include this as part of your ‘author’s reply’).

In addition to the suggestions from the reviewers, I would like to suggest the following technical items, in most cases ‘minor’:

(a) Damage has no plural and thus the term ‘damages’ has a different meaning. please check and adapt accordingly
(b) The second sentences in your abstracts is not clear if you consider the risk definition your study is based on.
(c) Please provide more information on section 3.3 and 3.4 because without reading Schneeberger et al. (2019) this part is not clear. Furthermore, why did you chose the approach of Borter (1999) which overestimates the risk, and did not consider models like FLEMOps or others?
(d) Please provide more information why you think a comparison on risk level allows more insights than on hazard level. In this context, I miss a discussion on the effect of the spatial distributions of elements at risk to your results.
(e) For any currency values, both in text, tables, and figures, tell the reader what year these have been normalized to.
(f) Page 10, line 4: please adapt the equation format according to the guidelines

Some of my comments may intersect with those of the reviewers.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will not send out for further review, but rather, will make the decision myself, assuming no major items come up in the revised manuscript for which I need outside reviewers to aid me in my decision.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]

Dear Benjamin Winter and co-authors

I am pleased to inform you that the revised version of your manuscript NHESS-2019-340 can now be accepted for publication in our journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS). We accept your request to add Kristian Förster as co-author. Please inform your co-authors of the editorial decision.

You will soon be contacted by the journal publication office for the preparation of the final version of your manuscript. Please respond promptly to the requests of the publication office, as this will condition the time of your publication, and read carefully any copy-editing recommendations that they make. Let me remind you that final publication of your paper on the journal web site is subject to the payment of the appropriate service charges. Also, do not forget that as an open-access journal you can freely distribute your paper once it is published.

I take this opportunity to thank you and your co-authors for having selected Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS) for the publication of your scientific work. I look forward to receiving further contributions to our journal from you and your co-authors.

Regards, Margreth Keiler
[NHESS Editor]
[Associate Professor of Geomorphology, Natural Hazards and Risk Research, University of Bern]