The manuscript requires major revision and additional review before publication. Please consider the comments of the reviewers carefully before submitting a new improved version of the manuscript. Especially reviewer#2 raise some serious issues that need to be carefully dealt with. The new version of the manuscript should be accompanied by detailed descriptions of how the new version considered the critical points raised by the reviewers

A paper like this (very broad in scope) can always be subject to criticism for lack of details on specific issues. The authors have responded satisfactorily to the issues that the referees chose to raise.
Unfortunately, sometimes such an extensive review causes authors to loose perspective. Therefore, I'd like to invite the authors to have a (non-complusory) re-read of their paper to ensure internal consistency.
Specifically,
1) You may want to add a perspective paragraph at the end pointing which findings of your work may be of general interest (i,.e., beyond the Plana Oropesa-Torreblanca aquifer)
2) You may want to delete tha last statement (low sensitivity of heads to SLR) because it is so trivial that it detracts from the rest of the work.
3) Km2 in the abstract should be km2