Polski
Feedback, Issue 15/2025
GIA report on the state of surface water for 2019-2024
Oct
As required by the classification regulation, the Chief Inspectorate for Environmental Protection published an assessment of the status of all surface water bodies (water bodies) on September 30, 2025. For the majority, it was possible to prepare it on the basis of direct monitoring results, while for the rest, modeling commissioned by the GIOŚ to the Institute of Environmental Protection – PIB was used.
A six-year picture of Poland’s waters
In accordance with the regulations, data from the last six years, i.e., the period 2016-2024, were used, but most of the information, especially on biological and physicochemical quality elements, comes from the last three years. This is important for two reasons – between the years 2022 and 2023, there was a change in the layout of water bodies and the limit values of some quality elements. For this reason, data from before this breakthrough had to be classified in a new way. The rule of thumb was applied, with the most recent data replacing older data.
We have written about the system of classification and assessment of surface water bodies in Water Matters on more than one occasion, such as. How bad is bad water? About the devil being in the details or Clean water, or what kind of water? It’s no surprise, then, that after applying the principle of worst decides the overall rating is wrong almost 100 percent of the time.
In this statement, it is 98.45 percent for river water bodies and 94.01 percent for lake water bodies. In previous reports, the proportions looked similar, so at least the media coverage will not be dominated by information about the sudden deterioration that accompanied, among other things, the European Commission’s report on progress (and, in terms of water quality, lack of progress) in implementing the Water Framework Directive.
The devil is in the details
Looking only at the final assessment forces one to conclude that things are bad, but this is a very simplified picture. That’s why it’s worth looking at the tables, where you can see how the various elements of the assessment of a particular water body fared. You can then find out that, in principle, the bad condition was always determined by the content of polybrominated diphenylethers (PBDEs) in fish tissues. In other cases, it was generally not examined. This is possible because this parameter is tested in diagnostic monitoring, but not in operational monitoring.
In addition, in many rivers, especially smaller rivers, despite the planning of surveys, the mass of fish turned out to be too small for the tests. This, on the other hand, is not a very good indication of the state of the river ecosystem. An example where PBDE in biota (fish tissues) was the only parameter indicating poor condition is Lake Kirsajty. Admittedly, a complete set of tests (e.g., macrophytes and priority substances in the water) was not conducted there, but all the physicochemical elements examined, phytoplankton, ichthyofauna and other chemical elements tested in the biota indicated first class, suggesting that the overall condition of this lake’s ecosystem is very good, and pollution by toxic substances is acceptable. Nevertheless, the principle of worst decides is paramount.
It should be acknowledged that there are water bodies in which it is difficult to find an element that does not exceed the standards of good status. An example are two streams flowing into the Vistula River on the border of Silesia and Malopolska provinces – Gromiecki and Golawiecki. In practice, they are recipients of wastewater from mine dumps. Both lack fish, benthic invertebrates are classified in the last and phytobenthos in the penultimate class. They exceed standards for nutrient and oxygen indicators (although to varying degrees), but especially salinity. Electrolytic conductivity there exceeds 30,000 µS/cm.
This is accompanied by record concentrations of sulfate and chloride (currently monitored but unclassified) and high concentrations of other ions: calcium, magnesium and boron. These are small streams not covered by diagnostic monitoring, so most of the chemical elements have not been examined in them, but among those examined, nickel and cadmium concentrations also exceed standards. A similar situation, but at a slightly lower intensity, affects many other streams and rivers in the region.
Certain rivers consistently have one specific pollutant. An example is the Poison River, receiving water from a former gold mine, for years the only one (sometimes one of several) with exceeded standards for arsenic, or the Swinka in Leczna, where record values of fluoride (now an unstandardized parameter) are recorded.
Four water bodies had exceedances of the perfluorooctanesulfonic acid standard, the first monitored compound in the PFAS group, which will enter wider monitoring in the future. Two of them are streams in Lodz province, devoid of fish, with poor or bad condition of zoobenthos and macrophytes. On the other hand, however, it should be remembered that examples of this type of record pollution are not always permanent. There are cases when, in tests repeated after several years, such a substance is not detected at all at the same point.
Report is more than tables
The obligation to perform classification and assessment (in the terminology of the Water Framework Directive, these are separate concepts) was fulfilled with the publication of the tables on the GIOŚ Surface Water Quality Portal, but the then deputy director of the GIOŚ Environmental Monitoring Department, Małgorzata Marciniewicz-Mykieta, decided to encapsulate them with a commentary. Under her editorship, a team of several authors prepared statistical summaries, maps and a textual study. This makes it possible not only to reach the tabulated data for a specific water body, but also to put them in context.
Thanks to map compilations, it can be seen that the classification of phytobenthos usually performs more favorably than zoobenthos or ichthyofauna. It can be seen that mountain rivers usually perform better than lowland rivers, but even among them there are exceptions with poor ecological status. Finally, it can be seen that the water bodies with exceeded values for benzo(a)pyrene lie mostly in the zone where high concentrations of this substance in the air are recorded.
At the same time, it can be seen, thanks to the juxtaposition of data from three six-year planning cycles, that nationwide the level of basic physicochemical parameters is essentially unchanged. This harmonizes with the European Environment Agency’s report on the state of the environment on our continent, released on the same day.
The report in pdf form can be found on the Surface Water Quality Portal of the GIA: https://wody.gios.gov.pl/pjwp/api/publications/media/2093
MAIN PHOTO: AElliot/Pixabay
