|Authors thoroughly improved the manuscript. The manuscript provides a description of established approaches and how those were implemented in a computational framework around the VIC 5 model. An evaluation of the different components is then provided, defining a novel benchmark for future integrated analytics with this framework. A couple comments remain to be addressed:|
- A handful of statements remain to be clarified and approaches credited upfront. As mentioned below, the VIC-WUR is an extension of a previously established representation of generic rules & water withdrawals and surface-groundwater allocation with VIC , i.e. Voisin et al. (2013, 2017). The existing VIC set up extends the Voisin et al. (2013) set up because this VIC-WUR is customized to VIC5 to facilitate 2-way coupling , specifically irrigation water demand and link to groundwater component. Similarly, a branch of MOSART-WM is now integrated in E3SM (https://e3sm.org/model/e3sm-model-description/v1-description/v1-land/) to better represent those same processes (irrigation demand, groundwater and others) which are differently represented in CLM and VIC. Drawing this distinction would provide an important resource for likely future multi-framework evaluation. There were a couple of other places where leveraged approaches would also benefit from being credited up-front. See below for more details.
- The evaluation really improved the impact of the manuscript. Given that there were significant differences in the simulated sectoral demands with respect to existing multi model comparisons, which could lead to large difference in findings from other similar frameworks, what are the recommendations of the authors so that the presented set-up is ready to go for energy-water-land analytics?
1) Unsupported statement – need clarification:
-L32 and L :”decrease computations times compared to previous versions” – specify the version (Haddeland et al. 2006 and pre-VIC5 routing model). This achievement is not a novelty of this combination of models only, this is a feature of Hanasaki et al. generic operating rules that does not require foresight with respect to Haddeland et al. 2006. The added modules leverage existing approaches and their implementation is not computationally more efficient than the other existing generic approaches, or at least this is not demonstrated.
-L524, same as L32 – unsupported statement unless you mention that the previous version is Haddeland et al. (2006).
2) Most approaches are not new and still need up-front reference.
- L83-84: important to specify that the Haddeland et al. concept relies on foresight, which is a roadblock to full integration in hydrology models, and explain the need for multiple runs. Without the explanation that Haddeland representation relies on foresight, the sentence mentioning that multiple runs are needed is unclear and does not clearly lead to the conclusion of a lower computation time.
-L135: add reference to the new routing model. Note that the new routing model is not motivated by the image mode of VIC5, but is associated with the Hanasaki et al. generic release rules and withdrawals processes at each time step, which is not compatible with the existing VIC5 Lohman et al. routing model. Previous applications of the Hanasaki et al. rules with VIC used a different routing model (MOSART) for those exact reasons. Those explanations were provided in Voisin et al. (2013). The existing set up extends the Voisin et al. (2013) set up because this VIC-WUR is customized the VIC5 to facilitate 2-way coupling (i.e. irrigation water demand and link to groundwater component) the same way that a branch of MOSART-WM is not integrated in E3SM to better represent those same processes which are differently represented in CLM and VIC. Such framing would better emphasize the novelty in this new framework.
-L138: Most are not “newly developed” modules, rather adapted modules. Please revise, or be more specific.
- L233 – sectoral water demands – please add reference to leveraged approaches. References are presently mostly in supplemental material.
3) Model evaluation
section 3.2.1 – the differences in sectoral water withdrawals are very large, not only in seasonal variations but also in long term trends. What are the next steps for this set up? Given the evaluation, what are the recommendations for upcoming energy-water-land analytics?