dear authors

after receiving the referee's comments and suggestions on your manuscript, I have spent some time myself in the reading, finding that the paper has interest for the scientific community and should deserve publication. At the same time, though, it is still not in an acceptable form, due to some relevant issues that you should try to clarify, in case you are willing to resubmit it after major revisions.
Mainly, the issues concern the following points and needs:

1. the contribution needs to be better placed in context, by explaining the elements of novelty with respect to literature
2. better integrate the model with real data and case
3. expand the discussion, with special reference to calibration and validation issues, thence applicability
4. separate discussion and results (see above)
5. (very important) please try to better constrain used parameters towards what is actually known of them. Parameters used are often variable and space and time changes they undergo are not neglectable (see e.g. rainfall, sediment concentration, landslide volumes).
6. expand references, also as a consequence of replying to the previous points.

After all of the major and minor questions raised by the reviewers will be answered, point by point, the manuscript will undergo another review round. I hope this is not discouraging you from working on your last version since it is already in a good form. I am confident that you would be fully capable of replying to all questions in due time.

best regards
FC

dear Authors

after a revision of your last modified manuscript, as well as your attached note on point-by-point replies to the reviewers' comments and requests, I am happy to tell you that the manuscript has greatly improved in all aspects and it is now almost ready for publication, should you adjust some very minor remaining issues.
After this, no other revision or step is going to be necessary.
Mainly, my last comment concern the organization of paper sections and subdivisions, which I still find rather complex, with too many subdivisions that are not exactly in line with the journal style.
For example, both sections 4 and 5 have sub-sections but you still put Results and Discussion together. My suggestion here would be to try to simplify this by merging some of the sub-sections.
Also, my other suggestion would be to try to better separate results from discussion of the same as in some cases it is not easy to distinguish between them as it should be.
Finally, please also have a final revision of the English grammar and sentence consistency because after so many changes it seems to me that there are some pending phrases and missing punctuations scattered in the text. Those are just minor things but that it is very difficult to enumerate precisely due to the tracked-changes document which is truly difficult to interpret, at some points.
After you will have uploaded the final version, the paper will directly go to production after a quick Editor check, without requiring any other steps.
I thank you for your efforts to apply the changes, as I believe that this will lead to a very interesting paper on a hot topic.
my best regards
FC

dear Authors,

thank you for your quick reply and for applying the last suggested changes.
After that, I am happy to tell you that your manuscript is now accepted for publication in NHESS and that it will be now entering the proofing and publication phase.
To this end, you will be contacted soon by the editorial office for the next steps in finalizing the paper formatting and completion.
I take the occasion to thank you again for submitting your work to NHESS.
my best regards
FC