Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for submitting your manuscript to nhess. Both reviewers find your work scientifically significant and appropriate for nhess. However, both also see major shortcomings. I invite you to revise the manuscript according to your responses. Please be particularly careful in improving the scientific quality and the presentation quality as the reviews indicate quite some room for improvement. I will try to motivate both reviewers to also assess the revised version of the manuscript.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

now the 2 referees have looked at the revised manuscript. Both agree that the manuscript has been significantly improved, and reviewer #1 recommends to publish the paper after technical corrections. However, reviewer #2 argues that the benefit of your approach should be demonstrated by comparing your DBCM scheme to other existing schemes, for instance by comparing your approach to a model which couples MIKE SHE with MIKE 11 hydrodynamic model (for your V-shaped catchment). I feel that this is a very valuable proposal and I would like to ask you to add this comparison.

Further, the manuscript needs careful copyediting. The manuscript contains many language errors and many sentences are difficult to understand. So you should invest quite some efforts to increase the clarity and conciseness of the manuscript and improve the language.

Best regards, Bruno Merz

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for your revision. The referee is now very satisfied with the manuscript, and I agree with him/her.

As a final, small issue, I would like you to consider the 2 minor hints of the reviewer. Please note that the acceptance of the manuscript does not depend on your answer, but still I think the hints of the referee are worthwhile to reflect.

Thanks and best regards, Bruno Merz

Thanks a lot for considering NHESS for this very interesting work.

Best regards, Bruno Merz