Both referees agree the manuscript is publishable in its present form and that EDDA 2.0 is useful and a significant upgrade to previous versions. A further typo I picked up for you to correct in proof if not already picked up by proofread at journal office: line 200 should start “A non-uniform”.

Referee 2 also provided useful guidance for further refining the hydrological components of the model going forward. I see you have mostly agreed with those but I'd like to re-iterate his or her point about considering replacing Richard's equation with a different approach in later model versions.

Many hydrologists including myself are increasingly suspecting Richard's equation should be outmoded for a number of reasons; some to do with numerical and computational issues in its implementation but most importantly because it is looking very likely from recent work looking at chemical partitioning between pores of different sizes among other things that it's fundamental assumptions are incorrect even if no macropores or hillslope pipe evolution mechanisms etc. are operating. So I'd suggest giving further thought to this comment as you start considering further evolutions in model structure.