Yorkshire water situation: January 2026 summary
Updated 17 February 2026
Applies to England
1. Summary
In January, Yorkshire had more rainfall than expected for the time of year which caused soils to be fully saturated by the second week. Most rivers began the month with low flows for January which then increased in response to rainfall in the latter part of the month. Groundwater levels rose in most aquifers. Reservoir stocks increased to above the long term average (LTA).
2. Rainfall
Overall, the amount of rainfall in Yorkshire in January was more than expected for the time of year. Monthly totals were above the LTA in all catchments, ranging from 111% of the LTA in the Ure to 181% of the LTA in the Hull. The first 5 days of January were dry in most catchments and then followed by frequent rainfall during the rest of the month.
In the Don and Rother catchments, after the first 5 days of the month being dry, there was a small event on days 7, 8 and 9. Rainfall amounts then reduced until days 20 and 21 after which daily totals became higher until month’s end.
In the other Pennine catchments, there was a small rainfall event around day 11 and then rainfall totals peaked again on day 22.
In the north-east of Yorkshire rainfall peaked on days 11, 21 and 27, with little or no rainfall between these dates. Most of the rainfall occurred within the latter half of the month.
In the Hull catchment, there was persistent rainfall throughout the whole month.
It was the wettest 3-month period ending in January since 1871 in the Don catchment and the second wettest in the Hull. However, the exceptionally wet November 2025 had a large influence on these statistics.
3. Soil moisture deficit and recharge
Across the whole of Yorkshire, soils began the month wet and were completely saturated by the second week. They remained so for the rest of the month.
4. River flows
Daily mean flows began the month low for the time of year. Between days 4 and 10, many Pennine catchments had occasions of exceptionally low daily mean flows for the time of year. This pattern remained until day 12 when flows increased in response to the rain that fell on day 11. Most rivers then remained normal for the time of year until day 22 when they rose a second time and became high for the time of year.
Monthly mean river flows ranged from 64% of the LTA in the River Calder to 188% of the LTA in the River Hull.
The exception to the general pattern was the chalk-fed West Beck. Daily mean flows within this catchment began January exceptionally high for the time of year and gradually declined for much of the month despite reacting to rainfall on days 11 and 12. On day 27 flows began to increase again and ended the month notably high for the time of year.
5. Groundwater levels
5.1 Magnesian Limestone
The groundwater level within the Magnesian Limestone increased at Brick House Farm and was above normal for the time of year.
5.2 Millstone Grit
The groundwater level within the Millstone Grit increased at Hill Top Farm and became notably high 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 became notably high 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 increased at Sproxton and was notably high for the time of year.
5.5 Chalk
The groundwater level decreased at Wetwang and was above normal for the time of year. The groundwater level increased at Dalton Estate Well and was above normal for the time of year.
6. Reservoir stocks
Reservoir stocks gradually increased over the course of the month, at an average rate of 1.6% per week. At the end of January, stocks were around 96.2%, which was 3.7% above 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.