The paper is suitable for the journal, in which also other papers deal with online databases on hazards. Th paper is suitable also for this special issue, dealing with the infrastructure of reservoirs, in this case with seismic consequences. The database is available and useful for fellow researchers, who can do research on it, or replicate. This is convincingly presented.
The reviewers, who chose to remain anonymous, did a very good job and helped a lot me and the authors, by providing a track changes corrections suggestion to the manuscript, for which I thank them. The authors answered satisfactorily to this. If the changes announced in the response file are implemented in the manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

The paper is suitable for the journal, in which also other papers deal with online databases on hazards. Th paper is suitable also for this special issue, dealing with the infrastructure of reservoirs, in this case with seismic consequences. The database is available and useful for fellow researchers, who could do research on it, or replicate. Regarding the presentation, as you know, two reviewers have provided detailed reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. Both reviewers recommended major revisions, and therefore I would like to invite you to submit a major 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’). A final decision will be taken by editor and referees after the evaluation of the revised manuscript.

The manuscript is suitable for the special issue and the risks associated to anthropic actions related to hydroenergy which is one of the most widely applied renewable energy sources are cross discipline relevant for the EGU (also for the ERE) section.
The reviewers made good and thorough comments, and the authors replied well to them, thus improving the paper.
I welcome especially the change in the title. I would suggest a further highlight of this in the lines 76-79 by emphasizing the transition from available information (collection) to database by all the steps this includes (organisation and classification of data, mapping etc.). Since also an ontology is included (see comment further down) the data visualisation approach as seen by digital humanities research (ex. in a working group of NeDiMAH network) should be highlighted.
Line 138-139. Figure 2 (the new one) is a really well done ontology model, as also stated in the text which refers to how the UML model was built. I would like however to see a little more detail on what choices have been done for this. In particular which was the transition from the UML to the relational database in Figure 3, then line 147.
Please revise the English.
If these are implemented, the paper can be published.
Thank you for your patience and responsiveness in these difficutl times.