I thank the authors for their excellent responses to the input from both reviewers. They have significantly strengthened the paper and I believe that the current revision is close to being ready for acceptance. There are a few minor ways in which I think some of the reviewer comments can be improved, however:

* In C1.3, the reviewer noted the edge case in which a river line flowing along the boundary of the grid will result in no runoff contribution to that river line. The authors note in R1.3 that they tested this possibility and fixed it, and that "the contribution is now evenly split between grid cells intersecting the line at the boundary". I would like to see the authors explicitly state in the text that this case is handled in this way: In their code they have fixed the reviewer's concern, but I do not see (please tell me if I have overlooked it) where the text explains this. If reviewer 1 was led by the text to conclude that there is a problem with river lines along the boundary of the grid, I believe that other readers may also wonder about this if this is not explicitly addressed in the text.

* I do not see where reviewer comment C2.6 about flow regimes below monthly scales has been explicitly addressed in the text. The Appendix B mentioned in R2.6 is a valuable addition to the paper. However, I would like to see a sentence or two explicitly mentioning the need for caution around the limitation mentioned in C2.6. I actually believe that the authors have already written something appropriate in R2.6; they just need to put this in the paper. (Again, let me know if I have overlooked this.)

Thank your for the minor corrections and the ones made previously in response to the reviewer comments. I believe that this paper is ready for publication!