Both reviewers acknowledge that the paper presents a solid review but that it does not provide enough synthesis and could be much more concise. Accordingly, I invite the authors to re-submit a revised version along the lines of their respones to the reviewer comments.

Dear Authors

as you can see from the two reviewers' reports, they are only partially satisfied with the revised version. HESS only allows exceptionnally a second revision of a manuscript but given that the reviewers' view substantially diverge, I would like to invite you to re-revise the paper taking into account the reviewer's comments.

After the public discussion, this paper underwent a major revision and was re-reviewed by the same reviewers. During the public discussion, both reviewers were very critical concerning the scientific significance of the proposed review, criticizing in particular a lack of integration / synthesis of the review. After the major revision, one of the reviewers was still very critical with this regard, mentioning that the "effort to integrate hydrology and hydrologic processes into the review comes almost as an afterthought in the final section of the paper".

The final version of the paper introduces the relevance of all reviewed hydrological processes in each subsection, which greatly improved the streamlining of the paper. It also offers some integration of the reviewed changes in the discussion section. The synthesis of all reviewed aspects of climate change impact on hydrology could certainly have been pushed further. But I nevertheless decided to accept the paper in its current form since its comprehensive review is certainly very valuable for further work in this area.