Dear Dr. Grouillet,

I had a close look at the reviewer comments and your manuscript. In line with both reviewers I rank your study as potentially very interesting for HESS readers, which are interested in a framework to conduct climate change impact studies. However, it is still a long way to reach this goal, as the manuscript requires substantial reworking as consistently pointed out by both reviewers.

Both reviewers recommend a much better explanation of the different downscaling methods and reflection on uncertainties. They furthermore recommend a much more in depth discussion of the hydrological models results, to partly the explain the poor performance in two of your study areas. I agree with Reviewer 2 that the framework like character of the study would strongly benefit from testing 1 or 2 additional hydrological models to work out how much your findings in respect better/less suited downscaling methods is model specific.
Last not least I expect you to acknowledge the constructive reviewers attitude by properly addressing their long list of technical corrections, putting more emphasis on properly explaining complex figures and by assuring proof reading of a native speaker.

Best regards,

Erwin Zehe

Dear Dr. Grouillet,

I am delighted to let you know that your manuscript is accepted for publication.

Best regards,

Erwin Zehe