Mind the Gap! Reconciling Environmental Water Requirements with Scarcity in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please find attached.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have examined critical issues in the Murray-Darling basin planning and water management. They have presented policy options that can address the need to adapt to less water and re-frame the current policy context. The idea of the manuscript is good. I recommend the manuscript for publication after addressing minor revision described below.
Line 13 – What does ESLT stand for?
Line 13 – What does SDL stand for?
Line 108 – Authors are expected to mention the time frame for such reduction rate.
Line 110- What are the “best available science”? Please bring info/examples of such approach/strategy.
Line 228 – It is good to see that the potential impacts of climate change on the basin has been reviewed. However, authors are expected to come up with a strategy/solution/suggestion to address such climate change impact. What do authors suggest for addressing negative impacts of climate change in this basin?
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Many of the concepts and agencies introduced in this paper will not be familiar to non-Australian readers. The authors should provide a longer introduction that more thoroughly 'sets the stage' for this commentary on the Murray-Darling Basin. This includes carefully defining key concepts, legislative bodies and processes, and terminology that may not be familiar to non-Australians. I have noted many terms throughout the document that will require definition or a more thorough explanation of context.
The paper provides a thorough and compelling critique of existing policies, laws, and practices, and also offers constructive, corrective measures.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
your paper is very interesting and well-written, and I think it could provide readers interested in the Murray–Darling Basin with very useful insights and a clear picture of the actual situation.
I have just a few very small comments:
- be consistent in following the Journal guidelines for the references (e.g., line 251);
- could you develop a bit the manuscript, showing if your results could be somehow used outside of the case study? Indeed, I am a bit concerned about the very local focus of the work (even if I acknowledge the great importance of the basin in Australia).
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
It appears that these authors have sufficiently responded to my comments.
