article [utf8]inputenc graphicx xcolor ragged2e textcomp In this manuscript entitled "Quantifying flood-water impacts on a lake water budget via volume-dependent transient stable isotope mass balance", the authors focus on an artificial lake and justify their study by stating that "[understanding] the relative importance of the hydrological processes in lakes can also help to depict the vulnerability and/or resilience of a lake to pollution". They aim to develop a predictive C1 HESSD Interactive comment Printer-friendly version Discussion paper model of both atmospheric and water balance controls on isotopic enrichment, quantify of flood-water inputs to the lake, and conduct a model sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate potential sources of uncertainty. Overall, the manuscript is of appropriate length and well written. Figures and tables are also of good quality and rich in information without being too crowded. While I enjoyed reading this manuscript, I think that the authors need to make a strong case for the broader relevance, impact and transferability of their methods or conclusions, in addition to revisiting the structure of manuscript. My most major criticisms are as follows: RC2-1. ** In its present state, the manuscript pretty much reads like a case study report. There is nothing wrong with case studies per se, as the uniqueness of place makes the conclusions of many papers inherently site-specific. That being said, I think that the authors should try to extrapolate their conclusions (or speculate about how their conclusions might extend) to other lakes (artificial or not) in Canada, North America and around the World. What makes Lake A and Lake DM different (or not) than other lakes where similar isotope mass balance approaches have been used in the past? In other words, what makes the present study novel? What are the really key contributions that represent an advancement to the science-and that may be relevant beyond the particular site that the authors focused on? Can the results be extrapolated to depressional wetlands which are affected by flooding as well? And if results and conclusions cannot be extrapolated, what about some of the methods applied in the current manuscript? My asking those questions is not my way to say that there are no novel contributions in this manuscript, but rather to say the authors have not explicitly identified them and should highlight them better.