Polski
Issue topic, In this issue, Issue 4/2026
We are facing a drought in 2026. It’s not enough to talk about it – you have to stop the water
Apr
Drought has once again become one of the most repeated words in the debate about water, agriculture and forests. It’s good that we are seeing the scale of the problem more and more clearly. What’s worse is that a huge distance still separates us from diagnosis to action. Concretes are needed: slowing runoff, retaining water in ditches, soil, wetlands and small reservoirs. But just as important is agreement among those who farm in the same catchment area. Water does not stop at the boundary of a plot of land or municipality, and solitary action – even the most effective – is not enough if across the border the whole system is still working to drain it quickly.
Snowy winter was not enough
At first glance, the situation in 2026 seems less worrisome than in previous years. The winter in many regions was cold and snowy, so it could have been expected that melt water would have fed rivers, soils and groundwater supplies. However, this did not happen. The beginning of the hydrological year, falling in November 2025, brought a deficit in precipitation, and the following months did not remedy the situation sufficiently. The snow cover, although present in places, did not translate into a sustained increase in river flows. The lack of regular precipitation meant that snowmelt did not work as we know it from history – it did not become an impetus for improving the spring wetness of catchments.
March did not improve the situation – on the contrary, it exacerbated the deficit with which the catchments were entering spring. According to IMGW-PIB analyses, it was an exceptionally dry month, which was quickly reflected not only in insufficient soil moisture, but also in the hydrological situation of rivers. In mid-April, about 64 percent of water gauge stations registered low levels, with downward trends prevailing. The hydrological forecast for the period also recorded 23 stations with flows below the SNQ threshold, the average low flow of many years. This is an important signal: the spring water deficit is no longer just about dry soil, but also includes rivers and the entire water cycle in catchments.
Plans are needed, but they won’t stop water
Under conditions of increasing water deficit, planning documents are of great importance. The drought plan organizes knowledge about the threat, identifies problem areas and prepares a catalog of measures to reduce losses. A similar role, although on a more operational scale, is played by studies prepared for forest districts or local government units. Their value lies in the fact that they make it possible to organize activities, indicate places of intervention and link water management to field conditions.
However, we cannot wait only for large programs, multi-year investments and strategies that take years to prepare and implement. Large hydrotechnical facilities are needed, especially in a flood situation, but they are not a tool for rapid response to drought. They require environmental procedures, water decisions, financing and time. Drought does not wait. Therefore, in parallel, it is necessary to implement dispersed, small-scale measures that can be implemented quickly – primarily in agricultural and forest areas, where decisions on water runoff have a direct impact on the balance of entire catchments.
Small and microretention: simple actions, real effect
The greatest implementation potential today is for solutions that take advantage of existing drainage infrastructure and natural terrain: depressions, stream valleys, local depressions and ditches. This is where water is most easily retained close to where it appears in the landscape. Small-scale retention does not rely on one large facility, but on many small ones scattered throughout the catchment area. Individually, their impact is local, but together they can improve infiltration, reduce surface runoff and stabilize groundwater levels.
In practice, this means, among other things, creating small mid-field and mid-forest reservoirs, slowing runoff in ditches, periodically retaining water in drainage systems, reducing runoff from drainage systems, restoring buffer strips, mid-field trees and wetlands. In many cases, these measures are cheaper, faster and less conflict-ridden than major investments. Importantly, some of them can be implemented as part of the ongoing maintenance of facilities, or through simplified procedures, as long as they do not exceed the permissible scope of interference, and are carried out in accordance with the Water Law.
This is not about pitting small-scale retention against large-scale investment. It’s about the right order and scale of action. In agricultural and forestry landscapes, it is necessary first to reduce rapid runoff where water disappears most easily: from fields, ditches, mineral soils, dry wetlands and valleys of small watercourses. Only the sum of such measures produces an effect that can be felt not only on one plot of land, but in the entire catchment area.
Ditches and drainage systems can retain water
One of the most important areas of change is the approach to land reclamation. For decades, agricultural ditch and drainage systems have been designed mainly to quickly drain excess water from fields and meadows. Under current conditions, they are increasingly expected to serve a primarily retention function. This does not always mean expensive reconstruction. Sometimes it is enough to reduce the rate of runoff by simple baffles, levees, constrictions, local shallowing of ditches, or regulating runoff from existing drainage systems.
The hydrological sense of these measures is simple: water stays in the catchment longer, has more time to soak in, recharges shallow groundwater and improves soil moisture in the root zone of plants. In agriculture, this can reduce the effects of periodic rainfall shortages, and in forests it can promote the maintenance of wet habitats, wetlands and peatlands. At the same time, slowing down runoff reduces the amplitude of flows – mitigating both the rapid surges after rainfall and the subsequent lows.
This is especially important in catchments where water has for years been treated mainly as an excess to be drained. Today, the same ditch or drainage system can act differently: not only to drain water, but also to temporarily retain it, distribute it and allow infiltration.
Public acceptance is needed
Money or regulations are not always the biggest barrier. Often it is habit. For years, a well-maintained ditch meant a ditch that was cleaned, deepened and drained quickly. Today, it increasingly means one that allows water to be retained, distributed and used in the landscape. This requires a conversation with farmers, foresters, local governments, water companies and landowners. It also requires clarification that water retention is not negligence, but part of rational water management.
Distributed retention only works if it is truly distributed. One dam, one reservoir or one buffer strip will not change the situation on a regional scale. But hundreds of such measures, carried out at many points in the catchment, can already significantly improve the water balance. Therefore, counteracting the effects of drought should go from the level of documents to the level of everyday decisions on the ground.
And this is where the most difficult part begins. Water flows through many lands, affecting many interests and requiring the responsibility of many decision-makers. Action by one owner can help, but it can also be undermined by decisions made several parcels away. If we retain water at the top of the catchment, and continue to clean and deepen ditches below, accelerating runoff, the effect will be limited. Therefore, not only financial and technical support is needed, but also an elementary understanding between neighbors at the catchment scale.
Catchment area instead of plot boundary
Poland needs a fundamental change in approach: from a model of rapidly draining water from the landscape to one of retaining it where it falls. Previous thinking, based on draining land and accelerating runoff, has gradually reduced the retention capacity of catchments and increased the vulnerability of agriculture, forests and ecosystems to water deficits. Under conditions of increasingly frequent rainless periods, the continuation of this model has neither hydrological nor economic justification.
But technical change alone is not enough. Water does not know the boundaries of land parcels, cadastral districts or municipalities. What happens in one field, in one forest or by one ditch affects the situation of areas below. Therefore, combating drought requires agreement among neighbors at the catchment scale: farmers, foresters, landowners, water companies, local governments and drainage facility administrators. If one landlord retains water and another accelerates its runoff, the effect dissipates faster than we manage to measure it.
Tackling the effects of drought must therefore not end with warnings, maps and strategies. They are needed, but they must lead to concerted action on the ground. Water that drains away too quickly is lost to crops, forests, rivers and local communities. That’s why the most important question today is not whether we have a drought, but whether we can agree early enough to stop the water before we start counting billions in losses again.
