The manuscript is well researched and written.

The boundaries shown in Fig. 1 imply that the German boundary to Poland and Czech Republic is a federal state boundary. In fact, these are national boundaries. You may add an additional class. In addition, the statement of map sources seems to be insufficient. This information should follow the utilisation permits of the data used - please prove.

A full stop is missing at the end of line 169

In Fig. 2 the symbol for federal state boundaries is hardly visible. Maybe use a rectangle with a dark background and a line of the corresponding colour in the center.

Line 222: Please prove the sentence, there is either a word missing (“and”) or a part of the sentence is left from editing.

Line 273: Fig. S2 should be named as table

For the paragraph starting at lne 274, but also in general: Maybe you could take use of the following UBA report: Entwicklung der ökologischen Beschaffenheit von Oberflächengewässern im Klimawandel - Wirkungsmechanismen, Modellierungsansätze und Handlungsempfehlungen zur Umsetzung der EG-WRRL https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/entwicklung-der-oekologischen-beschaffenheit-von

In the manuscript "Current status of water-related planning for climate change adaptation in the Spree River basin, Germany", the authors consider a set of formal plans covering the German Spree River Basin Region to explore the consideration of climate change, climate change impacts and adaptation measures in the plans. They present their results and discussions comprehensively. I would suggest a series of adjustments before approval.

1. Strengthen Purpose and Scope of Paper in introduction: The contextualization of the study is nicely done in the introduction. The indication of the scope and paper as part of the final paragraph could benefit from further elaboration. Both, the question of research gap and how this study addresses this gap and what can be learned from it, as well as the actual work should be addressed. For the latter, the authors might want to reuse lines 86 to 96 which seem out of context in the section on the case study and should either be moved to the introduction or the method section anyways.

2. Detailed information on case study area differences: In the later analysis, it is mentioned that some plans don't capture specific fields of action and information is provided on a sub-basin level (compare Figure 2). It could be beneficial to provide more context for these specific sub-basin areas as part of the case study description. This could help contextualize whether it it is an actual gap in all sub-basin areal plans if some of the fields of action are not considered. This study does not provide any context about the different requirements or settings of the sub-basin areas, which leaves the reader to estimate the 'goodness' of flood/drought planning at the sub-basin scale to the number of fields of action that are considered. I am aware that this might be out of the scope of this study, but mentioning/discussing it as part of the limitations would be valuable in that case. In any case, for readers not familiar with the German Spree river basin, it could be beneficial to adjust Figure 1 to show, which plans listed in Tab.2 capture which parts of the river basin area.

3. Methodology: The methodology is comprehensively explained. Two aspects might require additional attention: 1) The authors indicate in line 117 that some measures were excluded from the list without any elaboration on which measures and why. 2) Additional elaboration on the inclusion/exclusion criteria would be beneficial: a) it seems that here the authors should also mention that planning statements were also excluded when they did not (explicitly?) refer to the German Spree river basin. b) It is unclear how authors define whether a statement 'is described in the context of climate change adaptation or climate change and its (potential) impacts'. Is it when these terms are used, or referring to the consequence (e.g. shifts in flow regimes) or to future uncertainty or to something else?

4. The results and discussion section are well written, and informative. Depending on any clarifications in the introduction section as suggested in my first comment, it would be beneficial to consider the structure in the discussion section. Additionally, one minor point of attention could be that currently the limitations of the study are presented as a subsection following this statement in the introductory paragraph of the discussion section: "Therefore, the subsequent sections elaborate on opportunities to improve the integration of climate change adaptation into planning instruments that treat water management issues".