Title: Brief communication on the NW Himalayan towns; slipping towards potential disaster

Decision: Minor revision

The authors have performed a slope stability evaluation of two important towns of the NW Himalaya (India) that have been witnessing subsidence and cracks for many years. They have used different loading conditions to evaluate the response of the hillslopes accommodating these towns. Though it’s a brief communication and involves all possible aspects in its scope, certain issues require proper explanation.

Comments:

1. Why did the authors consider only these two towns in the NW Himalaya when many other towns might be facing similar problems?
2. Why did authors use continuum modeling even for the seismic loading, which has been considered mostly using discontinuum modeling?
3. How did the authors decide the value of extreme rainfall and domestic discharge in these towns?
4. The topography (ALOS-PALSAR RTC DEM) that the authors used for the slope stability simulation does not comprise present changes of subsidence. How will the authors justify their displacement findings?
5. Authors have used 2D slope stability evaluation, which might not cover all aspects of the instability of a slope and 3D modeling could be considered. Please justify the usage of 2D modeling.

The brief communication on the NW Himalayan towns; slipping towards potential disaster addresses two towns of the Uttarakhand in the NW Himalaya (India), with similar litho-tectonic conditions and precipitation regimes, where past and recent evidence of slope instability can be found. The topic fits the scope of the journal and the study area is of high interest since it is frequently affected by disastrous landslides. The manuscript is clear and well written, and the results obtained highlight the importance of further in-depth study. Therefore, I highly recommend the acceptance of this brief communication. Nevertheless, I recommend some minor corrections according to the following:

• Despite the manuscript is clear and well written it would benefit if the various sections were identified according to the typical structure (e.g. Introduction, study area, etc…).
• Page 1, line 13 and page 3, lines 7-8 : “In the last 1-2 weeks…”: please, be more specific for future reading (e.g. provide the month/year);
• Page 3, line 24: please replace 1.025 % with 1 %;
• Page 4, line 4: the authors mentioned Fig. 2i-j, but I think the “j” is missing;
• Page 4, line 4: please delete “of these”;
• Page 5, line 20: please replace “in shown” with “is shown”;
• Page 6, line 1: please replace Meunier et al. (2008) with (Meunier et al. 2008).