Leveraging Hydrologic Accounting and Water Markets for Improved Water Management: The Case for a Central Clearinghouse

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

This opinion paper tackles a significant problem in hydrology and related disciplines: how to increase transparency and deal with complexities of socio-hydrological topics. The text and the outcome of this paper is very intersting, however, it lacks somehow of the practical implementation of the suggested framework. But, due to the fact that it is an opinion paper, the text is quite sound and can be published with minor revisions:

- Please add more literature into your text. Of course, it is an opinion paper, but it should be based more on existing findings and literature, particularly in the Introduction and chapter 5

-You took California as an example and I would really appreciate if you could add an overview map, because you menition different regions in CA.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1:

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and for taking the time to review this opinion piece about improvements to water management. We have made major revisions in accordance with the reviewer’s comments. Below please find point-by-point responses to your comments.

1.     Please add more literature into your text. Of course, it is an opinion paper, but it should be based more on existing findings and literature, particularly in the Introduction and chapter 5

To address this comment, we have expanded the number of literature citations throughout the manuscript more than two-fold from 26 to 59. We agree with the reviewer, and believe that the additional citations provide valuable context for our argument. (Lines 29, 47, 61, 65, 67, 68, 70, 84, 97, 101, 107, 114, 123, 169, 170, 173, 175, 176, 180, 184-186, 192, 196, 201, 202, 207)

2.     -You took California as an example and I would really appreciate if you could add an overview map, because you menition different regions in CA.

We have added a figure that shows the location of each of the areas in the U.S. where examples are provided (Lines 78-80). We agree with the reviewer, and believe that the figure provides valuable context for the reader.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript needs to be improved. It doesn`t have conclusions neither good introduction. They should develop a short literature review in the topic and show examples related with this case study to compare between then

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2:

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and for taking the time to review this opinion piece about improvements to water management. We have made major revisions in accordance with the reviewer’s comments, and believe that the outstanding issues highlighted by the reviewer have been thoroughly addressed by these revisions.

 1.     The manuscript needs to be improved. It doesn`t have conclusions neither good introduction.

 We believe that this comment was addressed by the numerous editorial changes we have made throughout the manuscript to improve the clarity and flow of the piece. This includes updating the introduction (Lines 29, 47), which now expands the number of literature citations to clarify details for readers. We have made no changes to Section 6 (Closing Remarks, i.e., the conclusions) because we believe that it provides a clear and succinct summary of our premise. We hope that the changes satisfy the reviewer’s comment.

 2.     They should develop a short literature review in the topic

 The reviewer was not alone in suggesting an improved literature review, and to address this comment the authors have expanded the number of literature citations throughout the manuscript more than two-fold from 26 literature citations to 59. We agree with the reviewer, and believe that the additional citations provide valuable context for our argument. (Lines 29, 47, 61, 65, 67, 68, 70, 84, 97, 101, 107, 114, 123, 169, 170, 173, 175, 176, 180, 184-186, 192, 196, 201, 202, 207)

 3.     They should … show examples related with this case study to compare between them [sic]

 We especially appreciated the suggestion to provide additional examples, and to compare between them. We have expanded the number of examples provided in the manuscript as follows: We provide pros and cons of informal water markets in the Westlands Water District in California (lines 118-123), the shortcomings of the existing legal framework for water markets in California (lines 168-174), the benefits and caveats of a more streamlined water market framework from Australia (lines 174-176), and the problems related to groundwater substitution transfers in California (lines 181-186). We agree with the reviewer that more examples are helpful for supporting our argument and providing additional context for the reader.

Reviewer 3 Report

I satisfied with the clarification provided that this was submitted as an opinion paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3:

We thank the reviewer for their constructive comments and for taking the time to review this opinion piece about improvements to water management. We have addressed your points below:

“I satisfied with the clarification provided that this was submitted as an opinion paper.”

 We are glad that the changes we made prior to resubmission helped to clarify this for you. We appreciate the follow-up review of our paper.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I really appreciate the new figure in your opinion paper and due to the fact that you added a number of additional literature, your arguments and opinions are now more substantiated.  Thanks for this contribution and best wishes

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors did the proposed changes