We happily respond to Winograd et al. regarding our recent Eos article concerning interbasin flow <Nelson et al., 2004>. We reiterate that we specifically reject interbasin flow only to Death Valley (DV) from Ash Meadows (AM) through the southern Funeral Mountains (FM), but suggest it should be critically reexamined elsewhere. Clearly, fractured carbonate rocks may be transmissive and deliver much water to a well or spring. We question, however, the spatial scales over which interbasin flow has been invoked, involving as it must continuously connected fracture permeability over tens to hundreds of kilometers. The statement that water levels...demonstrate that the potentiometric surface...generally is uninterrupted by the ridges that separate...closed basins of the region somehow substantiates interbasin flow puzzles us. Despite assertions to the contrary, contours only exhibit the potential for flow. Well control is nearly absent in range interiors, especially in the FM (Figure 1); thus, one cannot demonstrate that interbasin flow actually proceeds via interconnected permeability. A lack of potentiometric divides and gradients through range interiors are likely contouring artifacts. Even accepting that potentiometric divides are absent, substantial interconnected permeability through range interiors is still not demonstrated.