Dear authors,

Thank you for the submission of your very interesting manuscript “A risk-based, network analysis of distributed in-stream leaky barriers for flood risk management”.

As you know, two reviewers have now provided reviews, which you have replied in thoughtful detail to. The reviewers come to somehow conflicting evaluations, one rather critical, the other seeing a lot of value in your work (but asking for clarification). In my view, your manuscript discusses a topic which has received little attention (in terms of modelling and quantification), so the development and provision of a simple model to understand the performance of a network of nature-based, leaky-barriers and to test many configurations at larger scales are certainly worthwhile. 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/file 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 terms of editor guidance on language: Personally, I do not have a preference, and the use of 'we' does not disturb me. So I leave it to you whether/to which extent you want to change this.

In addition I would like to suggest the following technical items:
(a) Please add a legend to Figures 8 and 10. It would be good to be able to understand what the size and color mean without searching in the text.
(b) NHESS usually does not use footnotes. See if you can do without.
(c) There is something wrong with the numbering of 'Code availability' and 'References'.

I look forward to seeing the next version of your manuscript which I will then send out for further review.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for your very careful response and revision. The reviewer is very content with the revision and recommends 'publish as it is'. He/she has one suggestion: "... I had one remaning suggestion...optional... could the authors create a graph of total storage vs Qp reduction?..." Please add this graph or feel free to leave the manuscript as it is, in case you think that this addition would not be worthy.

Best regards, BrunO Merz