We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful, constructive feedback and for the positive evaluation of our manuscript. In the following, we respond to each of the reviewer’s suggestions in detail:

1. We agree that a direct comparison of the Günz watershed to other watersheds would provide easy access to the suitability of catchments for this type of MAR. In general, we have to distinguish between the transferability of the methodology and the applicability of the site-specific results. The methodology itself is site-independent and can be applied to regions with different hydrological and hydrogeological conditions. Here, we consider the rural–urban distinction and the size of the watershed to be the primary factors influencing transferability. We have clarified this more explicitly in the corresponding discussion section to support a broader comparison with other catchments. However, site-specific results rely on actual measurements and field observations, so direct, quantitative comparisons are limited unless similar data are available.
2. We agree and have revised the abstract accordingly.
3. Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised the manuscript to remove spaces before all % symbols.
4. We appreciate this observation and have adjusted the sentence to “MAR with river water presents a highly valuable strategy to adapt to the imbalance of the landscape water regime.”
5. Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a sentence in the conclusion pointing to these potential next steps.

We hope that these additions strengthen the manuscript and address the reviewer’s insightful comments.

We would like to thank the reviewer for this valuable, supportive feedback and for highlighting the importance of the discussed topic.

We agree that the manuscript benefits from a clearer discussion of the transferability. Here, we have to distinguish between the transferability of the methodology and the transfer of the site-specific results. The methodology itself is site-independent and transferable to regions with different hydrological and hydrogeological conditions. Nevertheless, we consider the rural–urban distinction and the size of the watershed to be the primary factors influencing the applicability. We clarified this key limitation more explicitly in the discussion. While the study site stands representative of many rural catchments, the actual results are likely site-specific. However, they show the potential of MAR with river water in rural catchments with similar characteristics, as well as the potential of linking watershed risks with quality measurements.

Regarding the implementation of MAR, we fully agree with the reviewer that especially the upper catchments are promising locations. Although MAR is a versatile tool that can be implemented even at longer distances to the river, infiltration near major rivers often faces constraints due to high volumetric flows and elevated groundwater levels. Additionally, coupling MAR with direct flood protection measures is typically not feasible at major rivers. We further clarified in the introduction that we understand the presented potential MAR scheme as decentralized MAR.

We hope that these adjustments are in the reviewer's interest and will further improve our manuscript.

We thank the reviewer for this critical comment. The aim of this paper is to present a methodology for assessing river water quality with regard to its potential use as a source for MAR. Since laboratory confirmation of water quality typically occurs on a different time scale than flooding events, the quality of the source water must be ensured intrinsically. We propose that this can be achieved through a combination of high-resolution monitoring at strategically selected sites, a limited number of targeted laboratory analyses, and a risk assessment of the catchment. The new methodology was applied exemplarily to a river in southern Germany, which is representative of many rural watersheds of similar size. The methodology itself is site independent and transferable to regions with different hydrological and hydrogeological conditions. In the revised manuscript, we communicated the primary focus and structure of the study more clearly.

We restructured the paragraph starting in line 95 and clarified the presentation of our hypotheses and aims by adding two sentences. The section on examples of safeguarding water quality was indeed detailed, which we tried to tweak by deleting the three sentences on the implementation of the Water Safety Plan concept in Germany. Furthermore, we structured the discussion with subheadings and are now picking up the main research questions and hypotheses from the introduction. We rechecked our abstract with a grammar checker, but found no incorrectness in line 5.

We hope these changes improve the clarity and focus of the manuscript and appreciate further consideration.