Correction: Hervás-Gámez, Carmen and Delgado-Ramos, Fernando. Are the Modern Drought Management Plans Modern Enough? The Guadalquivir River Basin Case in Spain. Water 2020, 12, 49

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1].

We have found an inadvertent error in the initial reservoir storage volume taken in the modeling work. This has had a knock-on effect on the simulation results presented in Table 6 and Figure 6 and Figure 7, along with the description of the results provided in the main text of our article [1]. We have therefore updated these, as described below.

The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused by these changes.

The authors wish to replace the old Table 6 shown in this paper [1]:

Table 6. Volume (hm³) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.

Hydrological.	S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP						S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast)
Year	UWSD				IWD		UWSD				IWD
	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit
2004/05	35.46	2.06	37.52	0	25.90	0	37.52	0	37.52	0	25.90	0
2005/06	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	9.16	16.74	22.14	15.38	37.52	0	25.90	0
2006/07	24.14	13.38	37.52	0	19.21	6.70	25.27	12.26	37.52	0	23.67	2.23
2007/08	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	10.28	15.63	17.14	20.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2008/09	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	25.90	0	37.52	0	37.52	0	25.90	0
Total	135.02	52.60	187.62	0	90.45	39.06	139.59	48.03	187.62	0	116.13	13.39
Mean	27.00	10.52	37.52	0	18.09	7.81 30% *	27.92	9.61	37.52	0	23.23	2.68 10% *
Comparison B/A (%)							3%	−9%	0%		28%	−66%

* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm³ as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.

Table 6. Volume (hm³) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.

Hydrological.	S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP						S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast)
Year	UWSD				IWD		UWSD				IWD
	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit
2004/05	35.46	2.06	37.52	0	25.90	0	37.52	0	37.52	0	25.90	0
2005/06	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	9.16	16.74	22.14	15.38	37.52	0	25.90	0
2006/07	24.14	13.38	37.52	0	19.21	6.70	25.27	12.26	37.52	0	23.67	2.23
2007/08	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	10.28	15.63	17.14	20.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2008/09	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	25.90	0	37.52	0	37.52	0	25.90	0
Total	135.02	52.60	187.62	0	90.45	39.06	139.59	48.03	187.62	0	116.13	13.39
Mean	27.00	10.52	37.52	0	18.09	7.81 30% *	27.92	9.61	37.52	0	23.23	2.68 10% *
Comparison B/A (%)							3%	−9%	0%		28%	−66%

* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm³ as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.

with the following corrected Table 6:

Table 6. Volume (hm³) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.

Hydrological	S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP						S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast)
Year	UWSD				IWD		UWSD				IWD
	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit
2004/05	35.46	2.06	37.52	0	25.90	0.00	37.52	0.00	37.52	0	25.90	0.00
2005/06	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	9.16	16.74	22.14	15.38	37.52	0	21.44	4.46
2006/07	23.14	14.38	37.52	0	14.88	11.02	19.14	18.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2007/08	19.14	18.39	37.52	0	11.39	14.51	18.14	19.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2008/09	26.14	11.38	37.52	0	25.90	0.00	37.52	0.00	37.52	0	25.90	0.00
Total	129.02	58.60	187.62	0	87.25	42.27	134.46	53.16	187.62	0	102.73	26.79
Mean	25.80	11.72	37.52	0	17.45	8.45 (33% *)	26.89	10.63	37.52	0	20.55	5.36 (21%) *
Comparison B/A (%)							4%	−9%	0%		18%	−37%

* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm³ as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.

Table 6. Volume (hm³) of water used and efficiency in satisfying the water demands.

Hydrological	S-I: Using the 2018 GRB DMP						S-II: Using AQUAFOR (Mean Streamflow Forecast)
Year	UWSD				IWD		UWSD				IWD
	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit	SW	GW	Total	Deficit	SW	Deficit
2004/05	35.46	2.06	37.52	0	25.90	0.00	37.52	0.00	37.52	0	25.90	0.00
2005/06	25.14	12.38	37.52	0	9.16	16.74	22.14	15.38	37.52	0	21.44	4.46
2006/07	23.14	14.38	37.52	0	14.88	11.02	19.14	18.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2007/08	19.14	18.39	37.52	0	11.39	14.51	18.14	19.39	37.52	0	14.74	11.16
2008/09	26.14	11.38	37.52	0	25.90	0.00	37.52	0.00	37.52	0	25.90	0.00
Total	129.02	58.60	187.62	0	87.25	42.27	134.46	53.16	187.62	0	102.73	26.79
Mean	25.80	11.72	37.52	0	17.45	8.45 (33% *)	26.89	10.63	37.52	0	20.55	5.36 (21%) *
Comparison B/A (%)							4%	−9%	0%		18%	−37%

* Mean annual water deficit for the IWD in relation to the total annual IWD of 25.904 hm³ as established in the Guadalquivir RBMP 2015–2021. IWD: irrigation water demand; UWSD: urban water supply-demand.

On page 27, the second paragraph shown in this paper [1]: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 66% for the IWD), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%). There is no water deficit for the UWSD in the whole drought period for S-I and S-II. The IWD benefits from a mean annual water deficit of 10% for S-II in comparison with 30% for S-I” should be replaced with the following corrected paragraph: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 37% for the IWD), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%). There is no water deficit for the UWSD in the whole drought period for S-I and S-II. The IWD benefits from a mean annual water deficit of 21% for S-II in comparison with 33% for S-I”.

The authors wish to replace the old Figure 6 shown in this paper [1]:

Figure 6. 2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

Figure 6. 2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

with the following corrected Figure 6:

Figure 6. 2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

Figure 6. 2018 GRB DMP: Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

The authors wish to replace the old Figure 7 shown in this paper [1]:

Figure 7. Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

Figure 7. Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

with the following corrected Figure 7:

Figure 7. Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

Figure 7. Using streamflow forecast models (in this case, AQUAFOR): Measures taken in April (a,c,e,g,i) and evaluation of the real situation made in October (b,d,f,h,j).

On page 29, the fifth paragraph shown in this paper [1]: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 66%), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%)” should be replaced with the following corrected paragraph: “Indeed, the water deficits of the system are considerably reduced (up to 37%), and the use of strategic GW resources is minimized (up to 9%)”.