Research and analysis

Yorkshire water situation: February 2026 summary

Updated 12 March 2026

Applies to England

1. Summary

Rainfall and river flows were both above average for the time of year in Yorkshire this month. Soils began the month fully saturated and remained wet throughout. Groundwater levels increased in most aquifers but decreased in the Millstone Grit and Corallian Limestone. Reservoir stocks increased and remained above the long term average (LTA) for the time of year.

2. Rainfall

Rainfall in Yorkshire this month was above average for the time of year across all catchments. Monthly totals ranged from 112% of the LTA in the Rye catchment to 213% of the LTA in the Don catchment, based on the Met Office HadUK-Grid data set.

In most catchments the rainfall occurred as individual small events distributed between days 5 and 15, with very few dry days in this period. In the Don and Rother catchments the large rainfall totals for the month were the result of concentrated rainfall on days 5 and 6. In particular, South Elmsall in the Don catchment recorded two-thirds of the expected rain for the month on just day 5.

It was the wettest 3-month and 4-month period ending in February in the Don catchment since 1871. It was also the wettest 4-month period ending in February in the Ouse catchment since 1871.

The 6-month cumulative rainfall totals since September were notably high in the Rye and Derwent catchments and exceptionally high in all others, which showed the influence of the wet autumn and early winter.

3. Soil moisture deficit and recharge

Soils began the month completely saturated across Yorkshire and remained so throughout the month.

4. River flows

Monthly mean flows were high for the time of year in all rivers in Yorkshire. They ranged from 112% of the LTA to 247% of the LTA.

In the Pennine catchments of north and west Yorkshire, above normal to exceptionally high river flows resulted from each of the rainfall events. Flows recovered and returned to normal following each event. The exception to this was the River Swale which fluctuated but maintained high flow conditions throughout. As a result, monthly mean flows reflected this mixed picture, ranging from normal to notably high.

In the east and south of Yorkshire monthly mean flows were exceptionally high. However, daily mean flows steadily declined until day 5 but then rose to exceptionally high by day 11 in response to the accumulating rainfall amounts. From day 17 river flows reduced, although most remained above normal.

Flow in the West Beck was exceptionally high for the entire month beyond day 3, sustained by the exceptionally high groundwater levels in the chalk. In the final week the flow began to gradually recede.

5. Groundwater levels   

5.1 Magnesian Limestone

The groundwater level within the Magnesian Limestone increased at Brick House Farm and became exceptionally high for the time of year.

5.2 Millstone Grit

The groundwater level within the Millstone Grit decreased at Hill Top Farm and was normal for the time of year. The groundwater level at this observation borehole may be affected by its use for water abstraction by means of a pump.

5.3 Sherwood Sandstone

The groundwater level within the Sherwood Sandstone increased at Great Ouseburn and was above normal for the time of year. The groundwater level increased at Riccall Approach Farm and was normal for the time of year.

5.4 Corallian Limestone

The groundwater level within the Corallian Limestone decreased at Sproxton and was above normal for the time of year

5.5 Chalk

The groundwater level increased at Wetwang and became exceptionally high for the time of year. The groundwater level increased at Dalton Estate Well and became exceptionally high for the time of year.

6. Reservoir stocks

Yorkshire Water combined reservoir stocks increased slightly over the month. At the end of February, stocks were at 97.8%, 4.2% more than the LTA.

Author: Environment Agency, hydrology.northeast@environment-agency.gov.uk

Contact Details: 020 847 48174

All data are provisional and may be subject to revision. The views expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the Environment Agency. Its officers, servants or agents accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from the interpretation or use of the information, or reliance upon views contained in this report.