Policy Innovation and Governance for Irrigation Sustainability in the Arid, Saline San Joaquin River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
The paper entitled "Policy Innovation and Governance for Irrigation Sustainability in an Arid, Saline River Basin" is a study based on a consistent approach. Very interesting data are presented for analysis, and the information obtained from the study area is of good quality.
However, it is important to make a considerable effort to correct some errors and deficiencies that lower the scientific quality of the paper. Thus, a major revision is proposed. If these changes are not made, it is very difficult to accept this article in its current version.
Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a comprehensive improvement of the paper with the following objectives and criteria:
- It is important to include more references that help offer contextualization of the study. The paper is poorly referenced (41 references are very few for a study of this subject).
- The objectives and the methodology are not clear. Endless data is presented, but it lacks a good organization so that the reader is clear about the main objectives of the study and what methods are going to be carried out. It looks more like a technical report than a scientific article. It is not acceptable in this way.
- There is a significant mismatch between the number of pages dedicated to the initial part of the article and the final part, which is the most important. Very little space is devoted to discussion and conclusions. A general rethinking of the article is needed: more synthesis, shorter writing, more organized data, clear objectives...
- Maybe not so many citations from previous scientific works are necessary…
- The graphic part, in general, needs a major improvement. Figure 8 cannot be accepted (it is a copy of the computer screen).
- A greater effort is necessaryin the discussion: comparisons can be made with other case studies. The function of the discussion is to mobilize concepts and own data with those present in the scientific literature. Fourth section is more like previous conclusions than a real discussion.
After these changes, there are other detail errors, which should be corrected in the following phases of the review process.
Author is encouraged to correct these deficiencies for a high-quality paper.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
- General comments:
This manuscript provides an overview of studies covering policy initiatives, model approaches, and even a web-based real-time/interactive dashboard aimed at irrigation sustainability and environmentally sound salinity management. The author provides plenty of useful information about techniques and approaches that are valuable to readers, researchers, and stakeholders. The paper is also well written.
- Specific comments:
The author uses more than 20 abbreviations which is hard to follow. It would be a good idea to provide an abbreviation table in the Appendix.
- L77: No period needed between “the” and “soft”
- L176: “models tools” are duplicated.
- L287: “later in”, would it be better to add a section number instead of later?
- L332: Please, put a period between viable and It.
- L799: Please, check the link.
- L873: Change Figure number 6 to 9.
- L912: Change Figure number 6 to 9.
- L938: Change Figure number 7 to 10.
- L954: Change Figure number 7 to 10.
Author Response
Thankyou Reviewer 2 for your comments.
Specific comments:
Comment: The author uses more than 20 abbreviations which is hard to follow. It would be a good idea to provide an abbreviation table in the Appendix.
Response: I have added a table in the Appendix, as suggested, as a reference for all the acronyms and abbreviations used in the paper. This should make it easier for the reader to follow.
Comment:
- L77: No period needed between “the” and “soft”
- L176: “models tools” are duplicated.
- L287: “later in”, would it be better to add a section number instead of later?
- L332: Please, put a period between viable and It.
- L799: Please, check the link.
- L873: Change Figure number 6 to 9.
- L912: Change Figure number 6 to 9.
- L938: Change Figure number 7 to 10.
- L954: Change Figure number 7 to 10
Response: Thankyou for catching these grammatical errors and errors in numbering. These have all been rectified in the new version of the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript provides a selected overview of water management interventions (Groundwater, diversion of surface water, root zone, land and river salinity, selenium in drainage) adapted in the SJV. The review is not comprehensive. Except for noting the discrepancy in results from two different models which estimated the extent of groundwater pumping, there are no unique lessons that had been drawn from the interventions.
I do not recommend publication without a major revision for the following reasons.
1) The scope of the manuscript is not well defined in the introduction.
2) For a reader not familiar with SJV, the introductory sections do not help.
3) The bulk of the paper is about salinity management - so, need to define, whether it is about root zone salinity, land salinity or river salinity, and relate interventions to them separately. The distinction has not been made.
4) Many of the interventions are already tried in Australia, and possibly in other countries. There's no literature to show how interventions in the SJV compare with interventions elsewhere.
5) Overall the manuscript is not prepared with due care. There are typos, grammar mistakes, figures not referenced, poor quality figures, acronyms not defined. Many sentences can be rewritten and made concise.
6) I also think that the manuscript is too long for a Journal paper. Do we need the empirical relations used to estimate salt loads, assimilative capacity etc? Why not just tell the reader what each intervention is aimed to deliver?
7) I have made about 50 specific comments in the manuscript. Please see attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
The changes introduced have improved the quality of the paper.
The effort made to respond to all of the reviewer's suggestions has been remarkable.
The reviewer highly values the adaptation of the paper and congratulates the author for his great work.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
The author thanks the reviewer for his/her very helpful comments. Constructive and detailed comments such as the reviewer provided makes the reveision process so much more productive. Thanks again.
Reviewer 3 Report
I have now gone through the revised manuscript, and I believe that the Author has sufficiently addressed my comments. The readability of the revised MS is much better, and I thank the Author for taking my suggestions into consideration. I would request the author to revise the title to include SJV (although the phrase arid basin covers it) because the paper is only about SJV.Author Response
The title has been revised as suggested so that the reader is aware that the focus of the paper is the San Joaquin Valley of California.
The author thanks the reviewer for his/her helpful and constructive comments. They provided useful guidance in the preparation of the revised manuscript.
Best regards
Nigel Quinn
