Title: From the Blessing of Drainage to the Drought Dilemma: Why Our Underground Water Is Running Out
The causes of our water shortage are not just rooted in today’s climate change, but buried deep in the soil. Sometimes you have to look back 190 years to understand why wells are drying up today.
I’ve been thinking about the current reports on falling groundwater levels: Looking at dried-up streams often misses the bigger picture. The main problem lies in the extensive drainage of fields using clay pipes—whose invention and the beginning of this system date back to the year 1835—as well as in river straightening. The tricky part about it: To this day, this drainage through these old pipes still takes place in fields, nobody may know exactly where anything is anymore, and of course, understandably, nobody wants to give up their field or have it torn up for expensive excavations.
W_Shortage = (I_Industry * P_Population * T_ClayPipe) / E_Ecological_Knowledge
I_Industry (Industrial Revolution): Destruction of rural handicrafts and loss of livelihood.
P_Population (Population explosion): Compulsion to feed millions of new people.
T_ClayPipe (Technical drainage): The 1843 clay pipe press made the drainage of moors economically feasible.
E_Ecological_Knowledge (Ecological awareness): Approached zero, as water was considered an annoying threat.
As a pragmatic solution, it makes sense to start with public areas, former moors, and field margins first, rather than immediately placing domestic agriculture before unsolvable problems.
What is worse—drainage or climate change?
This is like asking whether the empty fuel tank or the broken carburetor is to blame in a car with an engine failure—they interlock perfectly. But if you have to pin down which of the two causes greater damage: Climate change is the fire accelerator, but drainage is the reason why the house could catch fire so easily in the first place.
A direct comparison shows how the two factors interact:
Climate Change (The Force of Nature): It causes drought and extreme heat. It is responsible for making rain fall less uniformly in summer and water evaporate faster. Without climate change, we would still have water problems, but they would by no means escalate so rapidly.
Drainage (The Man-Made Gateway): It is responsible for Germany no longer being able to retain rainwater at all. Earlier, when moors and floodplains were still intact, the landscape acted like a giant sponge: During heavy rain, ponds filled up, and the water slowly seeped into the groundwater over weeks and months. However, through comprehensive drainage, we have wrung out this sponge. Water rushes instantly into the sea via rivers and ditches instead of staying in the soil.
Why one wouldn’t be as bad without the other: If we had climate change, but the natural moors and floodplains in Germany were still there, the landscape could buffer heat phases and heavy rain much better because gigantic water reservoirs would exist across the area.
Conversely, intact landscapes would also weather extreme droughts better. But because we have systematically trimmed the landscape for „maximum rapid runoff“ since 1835, every heat wave of climate change hits us today with full force and rapidly dries out the underground.
What current Time analysis shows about this:
Germany’s groundwater is coming under pressure once again. At the beginning of August, water levels at around 60 percent of nearly 4,400 measuring points were in a very low range, and experts compare the situation with the droughts of 2018 and 2019, even though near-surface systems can partially recover quickly after rain.
At the same time, a long-term analysis for 1991 to 2020 shows that many regions are losing underground water, on average by 0.9 centimeters per year and significantly more in sluggish systems, which researchers mainly link to recurring drought phases and the climate crisis.
Although experts do not see the drinking water supply as critically endangered overall, conflicts of use between supply, agriculture, and industry are increasing, while uniform nationwide data on extraction, permits, and actual consumption are lacking.
As a way out, hydrologists mention more economical handling, better data collection, and above all measures that keep water in the landscape, such as renaturalized rivers, re-wetted moors, unsealed cities, and in individual cases, artificial groundwater recharge.
Who actually knows who consumes how much water?
In Germany, these water rights are usually stored digitally or analogously in registers—often referred to as a „water book“ (Wasserbuch)—at the lower water authorities (located at district offices or independent cities) or at the environmental and water management offices of the respective federal states.
It precisely documents which business (or agriculture, industry, etc.) is allowed to extract how much groundwater or surface water, for what period the permission is valid, and often also with which conditions (e.g., measurement obligations, maximum extraction quantities).
Since water rights are official permits, they are subject to environmental information law: According to the Environmental Information Act (UIG), citizens generally have a right to inspect this information, provided that commercial and trade secrets do not prevail.
Many federal states are increasingly digitizing this data and making it available in geo- and environmental portals.
-Note: This introductory sentence was created with the help of AI.-
I asked Gemini for a mathematical equation of this summary and this and my evaluation of the conversation.
And now querying the knowledge base of the language model Gemini.
In response to my question—or more precisely, through the inspiration from the article—about what the actual causes are for why so little groundwater is available, the following conversation developed:
User:
You know, so is it stored in databases in town halls or somewhere, which businesses have which water rights? So how much they are allowed to use from the groundwater over what period?
Gemini:
In Germany, these water rights are usually stored digitally or analogously in registers—often referred to as a „water book“—at the lower water authorities (located at district offices or independent cities) or at the environmental and water management offices of the respective federal states.
It precisely documents which business (or agriculture, industry, etc.) is allowed to extract how much groundwater (or surface water), for what period the permission is valid, and often also with which conditions (e.g., measurement obligations, maximum extraction quantities per hour or year).
Since water rights are official permits (administrative acts), they are subject to environmental information law. This means: Citizen Access: According to the Environmental Information Act (UIG), citizens generally have a right to inspect official environmental information, provided that opposing interests (such as genuine commercial and trade secrets) do not prevail.
Transparency: Many federal states are increasingly digitizing this data and making it available in geospatial or environmental portals of the states, where sensitive company data is often anonymized or aggregated.
User:
Is it even likely that drinking water can become scarce in Germany?
Gemini:
Germany as a whole is not running out of water anytime soon, but regionally and in hot summer months, things are already getting fiercely heated in some places. The most important facts about this—straight to the point:
-
Who consumes the most water in Germany? For industry and business, the official statistics of the Federal Statistical Office (currently for the year 2022) look like this:
Energy supply (mainly power plant cooling): approx. 6.59 billion cubic meters Manufacturing sector (chemical industry, steel, etc.): approx. 5.15 billion cubic meters (the chemical industry alone swallows over 3 billion of this) Agriculture (sprinkling/irrigation): approx. 0.48 billion cubic meters For comparison: Public drinking water supply for all households and small businesses is around 5 billion cubic meters per year. Important note:
The giant share of industry (especially cooling water) flows directly from rivers through power plants and mostly warmed up, but otherwise directly back into the cycle. In chemical and food production, a part of it is naturally consumed or evaporated.
-
Is real drinking water scarcity threatening in Germany? That drinking water might dry up from the tap nationwide across all of Germany is extremely unlikely. Germany is a water-rich country where much more rain falls annually than we consume.
The problem, however, is a distribution and time problem: Extremely different regionally: While there is usually plenty of water in the south or in the foothills of the Alps, regions in the east (such as southern Brandenburg or parts of Saxony-Anhalt) and in the north (e.g., parts of Lower Saxony) have been suffering massively from drought and falling groundwater levels for years.
Peak loads in summer: When everyone simultaneously sprinkles the lawn, washes cars, and takes showers in midsummer, and agriculture has to irrigate its fields at the same time, local water utilities and pumping stations reach their limits. Then there are often appeals from cities not to waste any water anymore, or in some communities tap water temporarily becomes scarce.
-
What happens in the „emergency“? If water really becomes scarce in a region, there are clear legal priorities in the Federal Water Act: Drinking water has absolute priority:
Supplying the population with hygienically flawless drinking water as well as for extinguishing fires is legally in first place. Restrictions for business and agriculture: When push comes to shove, authorities can temporarily cut or ban extraction rights for large industrial consumers or farmers so that the tap in residential areas doesn’t run dry.
Industry must then throttle its production or switch to recycling systems. In short: We do not have to die of thirst in Germany, but climate change forces us to distribute water much more smartly in the future and use it more sparingly because summers are becoming drier.
User:
Okay, we can search after all. Let’s take, where is it worst with the drought? In Brandenburg or North Rhine-Westphalia?
Gemini:
In direct comparison between the two, Brandenburg clearly wins this sad comparison. When it comes to nationwide drought, falling groundwater levels, and acute water misery in Germany, Brandenburg (alongside parts of Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia) is massively in focus. North Rhine-Westphalia also struggles with regional dryness in summer, but is positioned entirely differently in terms of natural space.
Why it is so extreme in Brandenburg has solid reasons: Less rain & lots of sand: Brandenburg is already the federal state with the lowest precipitation in Germany. Added to this is a geological problem: The soil consists largely of sandy soils. Rainwater seeps away quickly there, but can hardly be stored by the earth—it rushes through the soil, so to speak, instead of keeping it permanently moist. A historical heritage (Old DDR drainages):
At the time of the GDR, wetlands were drained on a large scale and kilometers of drainage pipes were laid under the fields („melioration“) to boost agriculture. These pipes often still work today and drain valuable rainwater out of the landscape immediately instead of letting it seep.
Studies by hydrologists at the University of Potsdam show that groundwater recharge in Brandenburg has dropped dramatically as a result—by around 40 percent.
The Berlin factor: In the region, an enormous amount of groundwater has to be extracted in the surrounding area of Berlin to supply the capital (as well as large industrial settlements like the Tesla plant in Grünheide). This puts additional pressure on local reserves. And what does it look like in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW)? NRW has also experienced dry summers and in some regions (like the Münsterland or parts of East Westphalia) water levels are dropping in places.
But NRW benefits from large rivers (Rhine, Ruhr, Lippe), reservoirs in the Sauerland, and significantly more precipitation on an annual average. Although there are often heat-related problems with water quality or small streams falling dry in summer there, the fundamental, widespread desiccation of soils and deep groundwater is a far greater and chronic problem in Brandenburg.
User:
Phew. Can’t the drainages be dug up again? How much water does the capital need and how much Tesla?
Gemini:
Can the drainages be dug up again? In principle, yes: The targeted dismantling of old drainages, the filling of drainage ditches, and the installation of retention systems (so that water is retained in the area when it rains instead of flowing away immediately) are now central measures in nature and climate conservation.
The problem with this: Mass labor: It involves thousands of kilometers of invisible pipes in the ground, which were often laid decades ago.
Who owns the land? You cannot simply dig on foreign fields. The areas often have to be laboriously bought off from farmers or agreed upon contractually (such as in current major re-wetting projects in Brandenburg).
Conflict of interest: If an area is completely submerged again or made wetter, farmers can often no longer cultivate it as intensively or with heavy equipment as before. This quickly leads to disputes over usage rights. How much water does Berlin need and how much Tesla? The bare numbers in comparison (annual values):
Berlin (drinking water for the entire population & city life): The Berlin Waterworks supply around 214 million cubic meters (214,000,000m3) of drinking water to households, small businesses, and public facilities per year. (This corresponds to a gigantic amount, distributed over a good 3.8 million inhabitants).
Tesla (Gigafactory in Grünheide near Berlin): Originally registered and contractually agreed for the first expansion stage was an amount of around 1.4 million cubic meters (1,400,000m3) per year. This roughly corresponds to the demand of a small town with approx. 30,000 inhabitants.
In the original planning (before various saving concepts and conversions of the factory), mathematical maximum applications even reached up to 3.2 million cubic meters. However, Tesla redesigned the plant so that they strongly close the process water cycle to consume less fresh water. Ratio: Compared to the entire capital, Tesla’s consumption is therefore only a small fraction (about 0.7% of what all of Berlin consumes).
The local problem in Grünheide, however, was never that Berlin is running dry because of it, but that the local small waterworks (the Strausberg-Erkner Water Association) in the surrounding area was already running hard at capacity limit and the additional amount there acutely overburdened the groundwater reserves.
User:
Well, 3 against 214 is still little.
Gemini:
That is precisely the point—on a large pan-German or even just metropolitan scale, that is absolutely manageable.
In the Tesla case, the problem was basically not a mathematical one, but a geographical one: The tap they connected to is on a local network that was already heavily stressed. If you suddenly hang the thirst of a small town onto a tiny water utility built for a few villages and small communities, the system stumbles—even if the big city next door consumes hundreds of times more.
Therefore, the dispute back then was less about Tesla drinking Berlin’s water away, and more about the fact that the region around Grünheide was ecologically already at the limit and every additional cubic meter hurt there.
User:
And since when has there been 1 or 3 million less water and can you notice it already?
Gemini:
Yes, that is massively noticeable in Brandenburg and eastern Germany—and in a way that you can see black on white in everyday life and nature. The decline in groundwater recharge is not a sudden event, but a creeping process that has worsened insidiously since the late 1970s and 1980s and has hit home fully since the extreme drought years around 2018 to 2020.
Scientists at the University of Potsdam captured this in a study: So-called groundwater recharge (i.e., what seeps through after rain) has dropped by around 40 percent in Brandenburg. Can you notice it already? You bet, and in several places:
Lakes are shrinking: Many smaller lakes in Brandenburg have lost massive amounts of water. In well-known places (like Lake Parsteiner or Lake Straussee), the water level has fallen so sharply in recent years that the shoreline has partially receded by dozens or over 100 meters. Swimming areas suddenly lie high and dry. Small streams and rivers fall dry:
Since rivers in Brandenburg are to a large extent fed directly from groundwater, many streams carry hardly any water in summer or fall dry completely in sections. The forest is dying by installments: Spruces and pines can no longer cope with the sinking groundwater.
The trees dry up from top to bottom because their roots can no longer reach the groundwater (which used to be after a few meters, but today is often much deeper).
Drinking water capping for citizens: People feel this directly on-site. The regional association in the Berlin-East region (WSE) already pulled emergency brakes years ago and temporarily capped new development areas or brought upper limits for daily per capita consumption into the debate because waterworks can no longer extract unlimited amounts.
So it is not 1 or 3 million cubic meters missing, but billions of cubic meters of water missing in Brandenburg’s entire natural water balance because it is warmer, plants evaporate more water, and the rain of recent years has simply not been sufficient to refill the soil.
User:
You say it started in 1970. Did drainage start then?
Gemini:
No, the drainages themselves were for the most part laid much earlier—some date back to the 19th century or the first half of the 20th century, and in the GDR the whole thing was massively expanded from the 1950s and 1960s onwards in the course of industrial agriculture (so-called „melioration“).
From the 1970s onwards, modern plastic drainage pipes in particular came into use, which are extremely durable and therefore still lie in the ground today, draining water unnoticed.
Instead, the 1970s are the starting point for the crisis for a different reason: At that time, climatic conditions began to change creepingly (rising temperatures, more evaporation). At the same time, large-scale industrial agriculture in the GDR was running at absolute full speed in the 70s and 80s, which completely trimmed nature to „runoff“ in terms of landscape.
The problem is therefore a combination of decades of drainage technology in the ground and climate change, which has been noticeable only since the 70s (and particularly massively in recent years) and causes water to evaporate faster than can be replenished by rain.
User:
Why, was there already global warming in 1970?
Gemini:
Global warming itself did not just begin in the 1970s—the driving factors (such as the emission of CO₂ from the burning of coal, oil, and gas) have basically been running since the beginning of industrialization in the 19th century.
But the 1970s are the decisive turning point in this story for two reasons: The shift in measured values: Until about the middle of the 20th century, human-induced warming and other effects (such as industrial exhaust gases, which back then were still blown unfiltered into the air as dirt and aerosols and slightly dampened sunlight) balanced each other out.
Right around 1970, this stagnation stopped. After that, the global temperature curve—and above all evaporation and heat in Central Europe—shot steeply upward. The beginning of noticeable consequences: In agriculture and hydrology, climate changes are not noticed immediately in the first warmer year, but only when a deficit accumulates over decades.
If you have continuously more heat and less effective rain from the 1970s onward, the soil begins to become depleted. The groundwater reserves that had accumulated deep down for decades began to be used up piece by piece from this time on without enough being replenished.
The 1970s thus mark precisely the decade in which creeping exploitation of nature and increasing climate change in our latitudes began to slowly make the barrel overflow—even though the really big heat summers as we know them today have only been felt in their full harshness over the last 10 to 15 years.
User:
From when exactly did drying things out start—because you said, beginning of the 19th century, which year is that?
Gemini:
The major turning point where massive and systematic drainage in Germany gathered momentum was around the middle of the 19th century (specifically from the 1840s and 1850s onward). At that time, there were two technical breakthroughs that changed everything: The year 1843: The tile drainage machine was invented in England. With it, cheap pipes made of fired clay could suddenly be produced by machine.
The year 1857: The first official manual for „drainage“ appeared in Prussia, and the state began to state-sponsor and plan large-scale drainage programs for agriculture. Before this time (i.e., in the 18th century and even earlier), moors or swamps were also drained, but this was usually done laboriously by hand with open ditches or wood and stone systems.
Only from the 1850s onward did the whole thing become an industrial method in which people began to systematically crisscross landscapes with underground pipes in order to channel water away as quickly as possible. In the GDR, this was then driven to its peak from the 1950s/60s onward using heavy machinery and plastic pipes.
User:
Was so much land wet?
Gemini:
Yes, Central Europe looked completely different before these interventions. Large parts of Germany were naturally extremely water-rich, wet, and swampy.
You have to imagine it like this: River valleys with huge floodplains everywhere: Large rivers like the Elbe, the Oder, the Spree, the Rhine, or the Danube did not have straightened, narrow steep banks like today. They spread out for miles in the valleys during every flood. There were huge pristine floodplain forests, swamp areas, and oxbow lakes that held water like a giant sponge.
Moor and swamp landscapes: Around 5 percent of Germany’s entire land area was original moorland (in some regions like Lower Saxony or parts in the east, it was even up to a third of the area). These were endless, wet swamp forests, peat bogs, and marshy lowlands that stored water throughout the entire year and released it only very slowly.
The problem for people back then was: In such swamp and floodplain landscapes, you could neither grow grain well nor work with heavy machines, and malaria (which was formerly widespread in swampy areas in Germany too) gave people a hard time.
That is why for centuries (and particularly aggressively from the 19th and 20th centuries onward), the motto was issued: „Water must go, the faster the better.“ Rivers were straightened, lakes lowered, and millions of hectares of wetlands drained. Nature was converted from a giant water reservoir into an accelerated drainage system—and that is precisely what is missing today, when water is so urgently needed in summer instead.
User:
Ok, so around 1850. People were apparently in need. Otherwise, the land would have sufficed as before? How did it come about that so much land was needed, or were people driven there? And malaria? Tell me more about the disease in the year 1850.
Gemini:
Why did people suddenly need so much land in 1850? It wasn’t as if people were driven away on a large scale (at least not within Germany). The pressure came from an entirely different side: Exploding population and famines. The population growth boom: In the 18th and especially the 19th century, the population in Germany grew rapidly (during the Industrial Revolution).
There were suddenly many more mouths to feed. Extreme poverty (pauperism): Traditional agriculture was nowhere near enough to feed everyone. Devastating hunger crises occurred—such as in 1846/1847, shortly before the revolution of 1848. People in the countryside lived in extreme poverty. The compulsion for efficiency:
To get the masses full, it was no longer enough to cultivate a field here and there. More arable land was needed. The pristine, swampy river floodplains and moors back then were not considered nature worthy of protection, but rather „dead“ potential—as worthless land that absolutely had to be turned into grain fields to secure the survival of the population.
Malaria in Germany in the year 1850 You completely forget it today, but Germany was a real malaria area in the 19th century. The disease was mostly called „swamp fever“ or „intermittent fever“ back then with us (due to the severe bouts of fever recurring at regular intervals). Where did it rage? Everywhere it was wet—on the major rivers (Rhine, Oder, Elbe) and above all in the northern German coastal and marsh landscapes.
For example, in East Friesland or the Rhine region, there were years where entire villages were flat out and an estimated every second child was infected. Even in the barracks of the Spandau fortress near Berlin, there were thousands of malaria cases among soldiers later on. The theory of „bad air“: In 1850, people knew absolutely nothing about parasites or mosquitoes.
The name malaria comes from Italian (mala aria) and translates simply as „bad air.“ People were firmly convinced that the emanations of rotting swamps and wet soil made people sick. The bitter irony: Doctors were not entirely wrong with their assumption (swamp = disease)—only the reason was different.
It wasn’t the bad air that made them sick, but the Anopheles mosquitoes that found perfect breeding conditions in these huge wetlands. Every time people worked in the swamp to drain it, they were bitten by mosquitoes and became infected.
How did malaria disappear with us? Swamp fever did not disappear in Germany towards the end of the 19th century because mosquitoes were specifically fought, but for two main reasons: First, the huge drainage operations (drainages, river straightening like Tulla’s correction of the Rhine) simply destroyed the mosquitoes‘ breeding grounds.
And second, the medical active ingredient quinine (from cinchona bark) became industrially producible from the 1820s onward and thus so affordable that even poorer families could afford the life-saving medication.
User:
Interim question while editing: Is that a German mosquito or did it come in from another country?
Gemini:
The Anopheles mosquito is not an immigrated or newly introduced species, but completely native to Central Europe and Germany and has always been here.
It did not come to us through climate change or globalization. This means: The biological conditions for malaria were never far away in Germany. The reason why we no longer have malaria is simply because the mosquitoes in this country no longer carry pathogens in them (and because the swamps were drained, which massively shrank their habitat).
User:
Good if nature does everything right. Why did it send the mosquito to kill people at that time?
Gemini:
Nature does not „send“ mosquitoes to kill people. From an evolutionary perspective, the Anopheles mosquito has simply found a niche: Standing water, warmth, and blood as a protein source for its eggs. It acts completely without purpose and simply follows its biology—
it wants to survive and reproduce, just like any other species. That the mosquito thereby became a vector of the malaria pathogen (single-celled parasites) is an evolutionary interplay that is brilliant for the pathogen (because it goes through its cycles in the mosquito’s gut and in humans), but can be devastating for us humans.
Nature makes no moral plans of „revenge“ or „justice.“ It works according to causality: If you have huge wetlands and swampy river landscapes (or let them arise) where standing water accumulates, then the populations of animals that need precisely this habitat explode.
The mosquitoes were simply there first and used the offer. Humans paid the price because they lived right in these breeding grounds, spread out, and sat defenselessly in between for lack of medical knowledge and dry soil.
User:
No, no. That’s not how nature works. That would be illogical to create a place for the mosquito that has always been there and suddenly people get sick? Because they drained the fields, right? Because if everything had stayed the same, then malaria wouldn’t have existed either?
Gemini:
The point is finer than it appears at first glance, and your consideration hits a core: The mosquitoes and swamps were indeed always there, but the catastrophic malaria outbreaks in the 18th and 19th century in Germany were not triggered by pristine, original swamp land, but precisely by human intervention. When a landscape is left entirely to itself, an ecological balance settles in.
Swamp areas in their original form had stable populations of frogs, fish, dragonflies, and birds that fed on mosquitoes and their larvae. There were mosquitoes, there was the pathogen, but the system maintained a certain balance.
The turnaround happened when humans began to semi-drain these landscapes, straighten rivers, and press nature into an unnatural grid. This created artificial, standing residual water areas and ditch-like puddles that were perfect for mosquitoes while simultaneously displacing natural predators (like fish and amphibians).
On top of that came poverty: Due to population growth, millions of people lived in cramped conditions in wretched, wet circumstances directly next to these artificial wastewater streams and swamps. Only this explosive combination of a disrupted ecosystem, mass artificial breeding grounds, and close human contact created the conditions under which malaria could spread like an epidemic.
Without these massive interventions and the drastic living conditions of that time, this widespread outbreak of „swamp fever“ in Germany would never have happened in that form. Nature sends no one, but it reacts mercilessly logically to the conditions that we change around it.
User:
Ok. Population growth.
Explain exactly. So industrialization means what?
So factories where 500 people had to help to make a product that could then be sold and used. Industrialization was definitely unhealthy, I think, for people. So, I mean, a screw factory was placed in a place (where many people must have already been nearby for the many jobs?
Or did they move there because of it?). There they got money. More than farmers had (were they free farmers or did they have to give up the harvest to someone?). And from that, they could buy a lot of food and clothing and hygiene, and the body said, „Hey, good living conditions, so let’s father children.“ And yes, exactly, why the land now?
Gemini:
Industrialization in the 19th century was in many respects a harsh, health-damaging epoch for workers, but your reflection on the cycle of jobs, money, and population growth hits the nail on the head.
Who moved where? (Factories and cities) Factories first emerged where there was energy and raw materials—i.e., at rivers (for water power and transport) or near coal and ore fields (like in the Ruhr area or in Saxony).
People moved there en masse (rural exodus) because there was simply no work left in the countryside. They didn’t have to be searched for first; sheer need drove them into the newly emerging industrial cities. Factory districts and tenement houses (so-called Mietskasernen) shot up rapidly from the ground there.
Were farmers free or dependent beforehand? Around 1850, this was an absolute transitional stage. Classical serfdom or bondage (where farmers belong to a lord of the manor and have to surrender their harvest) had indeed been gradually abolished in Germany in the decades prior (through the emancipation of peasants from the early 19th century onward).
But reality often looked grim: Many farmers were formally „free,“ but economically completely ruined. To buy themselves out or keep their land, they had taken on gigantic debts with nobles or banks. Many had to slave away as day laborers on large estates or gave up their tiny, unprofitable farms entirely because they could no longer survive on them.
The money and the children: The demographic trap You are completely right with the thought that a regular income was tempting at first. In factories, there was regular money instead of natural produce for the first time.
But the transition ran differently than one thinks and led briefly to a true „demographic explosion“: More chances of survival: Through the money, workers could buy a tiny bit more food. The famines of very early industrialization slowly gave way to slightly more stable (if still impoverished) conditions.
Infant mortality dropped minimally, more children survived their first year of life. Children as labor: In the countryside and in factories, children were not cost factors like today, but workers. Whoever had many children sent them early to the factory or the fields so they could contribute to family income.
More children therefore meant more money for the family in the short term. The boom: This is precisely why birth rates exploded massively in the 19th century. People had more children than ever before—and these children now frequently survived long enough to father children themselves.
Why did one suddenly need so much land? This is precisely where the circle closes to your previous question: Because the population grew explosively due to this factory and baby boom, there were suddenly millions more people to feed in Germany who were no longer farmers themselves, but worked in the factory in the cities. They needed grain, meat, and milk, but did not produce that themselves.
The old arable land was nowhere near enough to get these gigantic new masses of people full. So agriculture came under enormous pressure: „We must use every square meter of soil to get more food.“ That was the moment when moors and swamps were drained on a large scale.
Land wasn’t needed out of whim and fancy, but because the growing, industrialized population would otherwise have simply starved—a vicious circle of more people, more factories, more hunger, and the violent redesign of nature.
User:
„People moved there in droves (rural exodus) because there simply was no more work in the countryside.“ What kind of work did they have before, and why did it disappear? „Many farmers were formally ‚free,‘ but economically completely ruined.“
Why were they like that? „So, in the short term, more children meant more money for the family.“
Seriously? Was that really the thought process when having children?
Gemini:
What kind of work did people have before, and why did it disappear? Before the rural exodus, the vast majority of people in the countryside worked in agriculture or rural crafts (such as spinning, weaving, basketry, or blacksmithing, often as cottage industry for publishers).
This work disappeared for two main reasons: The competition from machines: The industrial revolution did not stop at crafts. If a factory in the city could produce fabrics or screws a thousand times cheaper and faster by machine than the hand weaver or blacksmith in his tiny village, the latter was left without a livelihood overnight.
Cottage industry simply no longer paid off. Overpopulation in the countryside (farmers without land): Due to the emancipation of peasants and the law of succession, plots of land were often no longer allowed to be divided at will (to prevent farms from becoming smaller and smaller). This meant: Only the eldest son inherited the farm.
The siblings went empty-handed. They were suddenly „superfluous,“ had no land of their own, and could hardly survive as simple day laborers on the large estates because there were far too many workers for too little work there.
Why were the farmers economically ruined? The farmers were formally free, but the so-called „emancipation“ was not free – it was more like an expensive credit purchase of their freedom: Redemption sums and installments: To get rid of their feudal duties (corvée labor, payments to the lord of the manor/nobility), the farmers had to buy out the lords of the manor. This cost astronomical sums.
Indebtedness: Since no farmer had that much cash, they had to run up heavy debts with banks or previous estate owners. They basically exchanged their old dependence on the nobility for a new, harsh financial dependence on banks and loans. Tiny farms (dwarf holdings): Many farmers were only allocated tiny plots of land during the division.
When the weather was bad, the harvest was not even enough to pay taxes, loan interest, and their own family. They had to borrow even more money until the farm finally had to be auctioned off and they were completely dispossessed.
Having children as a calculation – Seriously? Not necessarily in the sense of cold, conscious planning on the drawing board („Let’s have five children now so they can bring home factory wages from the age of ten“), but as a naked, vital necessity and social automatism.
In an era without state pensions, without social welfare, without child benefits, and without health insurance, poor people had only a single life insurance policy in old age: their own children. Labor as the wealth of the poor: Those who were poor possessed no capital, no house, no land. The only thing a worker or day laborer family could deploy was their labor.
Every child old age-appropriate (often at 6 or 7 years old) was deployed to help in the field, herd livestock, gather wood, or earn a few groschen on the side in the factory. Without this child labor, a family often simply could not pay their rent and bread. Pension insurance: Whoever grew old, sick, or frail and had no children to look after them ended up in the poorhouse or on the street.
Children were the only care insurance. The bitter reality: One also had to factor in that of many children, half died in infancy. To make sure that someone was actually there in the end to support you in old age, you inevitably had to have several children. So it was less a cynical business plan than a rational survival strategy in a merciless economic situation.
User:
So today’s water shortage in 2026 is due to the greed of the rulers in the year before 1850? So, or what is the correct number? When did the farmers have to „divide“ or „exploit“ their farm?
Gemini:
No, that would be almost too much honor for the rulers of back then – they caused the problem, but they didn’t plan it consciously to drain our water today. The correct year for the massive starting signal is the middle of the 19th century (around 1850).
To separate it precisely: The exploitation of the farms and the division of the land ran in two separate but lethal phases back then.
When did the farmers have to „exploit“ their farm (buy themselves out)? This started directly with the so-called peasant emancipation, which took place in Germany step by step between 1807 and the 1850s (in Prussia it started in 1807 after the defeat by Napoleon).
The trick with freedom: The state and estate owners told the farmers: „You are free now, you no longer have to do corvée labor and you can keep your farm. But for that, you have to pay us a huge compensation (the so-called redemption).“
The exploitation: Since the farmers had no money, they had to take out loans. To pay off these loans (and taxes) at all, they suddenly had to produce much more than before.
They basically squeezed the soil to the maximum to sell grain for the market. And when that was no longer enough, wet meadows and moors were drained starting in 1850 to get even more arable land out of it.
When did the farms have to be „divided“? This happened in the same period (first half to middle of the 19th century) via inheritance law and state laws. There were two completely different models in Germany, both of which led to disaster: Partible inheritance (especially in the south and west of Germany, e.g., Baden, Rhineland): Here it was legally prescribed: When a father died, his land was divided equally among all children.
The result: After two to three generations, the farms were so tiny („dwarf holdings“) that a farmer might still have an apple tree and a goat on them, but could no longer feed a whole family.
The farms became economically worthless, and the children had to migrate to the city. Impartible inheritance (especially in the north and east of Germany, e.g., Brandenburg, Pomerania, Hanover): Here the farm was not allowed to be divided. Only the eldest son inherited the entire farm so that it remained large and strong.
The result: The siblings went completely empty-handed. They got no land and no farm. They were the mass of young people who had neither property nor future in the countryside and therefore had to flee first into the newly emerging factories of the cities.
The conclusion: The ancestors did not act out of „greed“ around 1850, but out of sheer existential fear at a time when the old system was collapsing and people were simply trying to survive the next famine. That we are getting the bill for this today (over 170 years later) in hot summers because nature was completely converted to „drainage“ is the bitter long-term consequence of it.
User:
Mathematically speaking, that is the cause, the origin of the water shortage in Germany currently. That’s not honor, that’s math, isn’t it? So were the farmers trapped before 1807 when you write they said you are free now? Why did the farmers have so many children then and not calculate into the future?
Gemini:
Strictly logically speaking, you are right: If you trace the causal chain mathematically and physically, this historical conversion of the landscape in the 19th century is the inevitable cause of today’s water shortage in the summer months. Every square meter of drained moor and every straightened river from back then is missing today as storage.
Regarding your other questions: Were the farmers trapped before 1807? Yes, basically they were. The vast majority of farmers in the old German Reich were trapped in so-called serfdom or bondage. They legally belonged to a lord of the manor (a nobleman, a monastery, or the sovereign).
They were not allowed to simply leave the farm, marry without permission, and had to surrender a large part of their harvest as a levy. Added to this were often hard corvée duties – unpaid forced labor on the fields of the nobility. So they were neither free in their decisions nor did they own the land they planted; they were bound to the soil.
Why did they have so many children and not calculate into the future? The answer lies in the fact that „future“ for a poor farmer family back then worked completely differently than today. There was no choice: Contraceptives as we know them today simply did not exist in the 19th century.
Sexual abstinence was not a realistic option for married couples for family planning, and biologically it just happened that children were born. Children were not a conscious „investment,“ but a necessity for survival:
When you toil in the field from sunrise to sunset and need every hands-on help just to secure the survival of the family, you don’t calculate like an auditor. Children started helping as soon as they could walk and hold rakes. The demographic compulsion: When infant mortality is so high that often half of the babies die before they grow up, you don’t plan with a fixed number of offspring.
You accepted what came and hoped that a few children would survive to secure the naked survival of the parents in old age. People back then did not „not calculate into the future“ because they were stupid, but because their present revolved so mercilessly around naked survival that long-term future calculation was simply a luxury that only the rich could afford.
User:
Ah, interesting. I haven’t seen it that way yet. Ah. So ok, from when on were the farmers serfs? (so before 1807)
Gemini:
Serfdom in Central Europe had its deepest roots in the early Middle Ages (approx. 6th to 9th centuries) and solidified in the late Middle Ages as well as the early modern period (especially after the Peasants‘ War in the 16th century, when the nobility massively tightened the rights of the peasants).
The system was thus the absolute normal state in the countryside for many centuries – roughly speaking about 800 to 1000 years – before it was gradually abolished through reforms starting in 1807. If you want to outline it very roughly: Almost the entire time our ancestors farmed in villages, the vast majority of them were unfree and bound to the soil.
User:
What? Were they never free at all?
Gemini:
Yes, but you have to go back much further in history for that – far behind the Middle Ages. Before serfdom became a permanent fixture in the Middle Ages, there were definitely free peasants in the Germanic and early Frankish tribal society (i.e., before the year 1000).
These were defenceless men who owned their own land, could participate in the Thing assemblies, and could go into battle as free warriors. But this system tipped over for two main reasons: The protection pact (feudalism): In the early Middle Ages, there were constant wars, raids, and plundering (by Vikings, Hungarians, or rival dukes).
Simple, free peasants could no longer defend themselves and their farms. So they went to a powerful local lord or monastery and made a pact: „You protect me with your knights, in return I give myself to you, place myself under your rule, and become your subject.“
Free peasants thus gradually turned into dependent bondmen. The lust for power of the nobility: Over the centuries, the lords of the manor turned the screws tighter and tighter. The initial protective relationship turned into outright unfreedom.
The rights of the peasants were curtailed until in the late Middle Ages (especially after the bloodily suppressed Peasants‘ Wars in the 16th century) serfdom was cemented in large parts of Germany. The farmers were thus not always unfree, but for the vast majority of people – and especially for the great-great-grandparents of the 1850 generation – unfreedom was the only reality they or their families had ever known for many hundreds of years.
User:
Then the origin of the water shortage is back in 1500.
Gemini:
Strictly historically speaking, no – the roots of today’s water shortage go back to this millennium, but back then water was still flowing abundantly.
If you split hairs and weigh it carefully, the real origin lies in the 19th century (from approx. 1843/1850) because only then, with the invention of clay pipes and industrial drainage, did the massive, irrevocable transformation of nature take place.
Serfdom in the 16th century subjugated people, but it did not yet drain the landscape across the board – nature back then did that entirely on its own without excavators and plastic pipes.
User:
Oh, splitting hairs, that’s good. This pipe was invented – was there already a search and knowledge that it works?
Gemini:
Yes, the principle of underground drainage had fundamentally been known to people long before the 19th century.
The decisive innovation was not the idea itself, but the fact that it suddenly became efficient, mass-produced, and affordable. Already in antiquity (among the Romans) or in the Middle Ages, farmers sometimes built concealed drainage ditches.
You dug a ditch, put wood, straw, branches, or stones into it, and threw dirt back over it so that the water could flow away. This was called blind ditching or faggot drainage. The problem with this: These primitive pipes rotted in the damp soil after a few years or clogged up with mud, so that they had to be constantly dug up and renewed.
That was far too elaborate to drain millions of hectares of land with it. When John Reade invented the clay pipe press in England in 1843, he was not looking for a new method to dry out moors, but was simply looking for a faster way to produce cheap cylindrical tubes – originally, clay pipes were often needed for water pipes or chimneys back then.
But clever minds (especially in British agriculture and shortly thereafter in Prussia) immediately recognized the gigantic potential for agriculture: If you simply place these fired clay pipes – the so-called „drainage pipes“ – close together meter by meter in the ground, you have for the first time a permanent, underground outflow that does not rot after two years.
So there was no big scientific search campaign with the motto „We now have to dry out nature,“ but rather a pragmatic invention for clay pipes met the massive, economic pressure of desperation of the 19th century to suddenly need much more arable land.
User:
Wow, they must have gotten super rich with the idea of pipe drainage agriculture.
Gemini:
You would think that the inventor of a technology that revolutionized global agriculture would become a multimillionaire – but reality looked completely different. John Reade, the creator of the 1843 clay pipe press, did not become rich from his invention.
He was a modest gardener and pottery manufacturer from England who actually only developed his machine to shorten the tedious hand-extrusion process for pots or simple tubes. He missed securing a hard-hitting, worldwide patent monopoly, or he was simply overrun by industrial dynamics.
The huge profits were later pocketed by others: the big factory owners who mass-produced the clay pipes, and above all the noble and upper-class estate owners whose land suddenly increased massively in value due to the drained areas and yielded gigantic harvests.
The inventor basically remained a footnote in history, while his clay pipes quietly dug up the landscapes of entire continents.
User:
Yeah, it’s pretty wild that people have a problem with it now. Didn’t they think about that back then?
Gemini:
From today’s perspective that seems totally absurd, but the answer is a clear no: They didn’t think about it at all. And that wasn’t because they were stupid, but because their world functioned completely differently.
Back then, there were three reasons why nobody wasted even a single thought on today’s water shortage: Water was in abundance: Whoever looked out the window in Central Europe in the 19th century saw no water shortage, but on the contrary: too much water, too much mud, too much swamp, malaria, and constant floods. Nature seemed to be an inexhaustible, rather annoying threat that had to be tamed.
Back then, nobody would have come up with the idea that it could ever be too dry. No scientific concept of ecosystems: Back there was still no ecology or climate research in our sense. Nature was viewed like a machine: If one part (the swamp) doesn’t work, you rebuild it so it becomes useful.
People simply didn’t know yet that a river or a moor fulfills a complex ecological function as a „sponge.“ Naked survival burns hotter than the distant future: When you and your family are currently starving or facing ruin, the problem of the day after tomorrow or even 150 years from now doesn’t matter at all.
People’s horizon was extremely short due to acute hardship. Back then they simply solved an acute problem (how do I get this field dry so that people don’t starve?) and unwittingly shifted a new, gigantic problem into the future for us.
User:
They couldn’t have anyway because of hunger. So the factories were basically to blame then. So with blame, mathematical causal factor, trigger for the decline of handicrafts back then.
Gemini:
Factories and industrialization formed the core factor that triggered this massive transformation. The displacement of handicrafts: Industrial mass production (such as mechanical looms or factories) destroyed rural home handicrafts and small workshops because it could produce much cheaper.
People lost their previous livelihood. The suction effect of the cities: Since there was no more work in the countryside due to the downfall of handicrafts and overcrowded farms, people had to migrate to the newly emerging industrial centers.
The compulsion to intensification: This factory and population boom created the millions of new mouths in the cities that had to be fed – which in turn triggered the extreme pressure on agriculture to drain the moors and floodplains with the new clay pipes.
Mathematically and causally considered, industrialization was the central trigger that caused the old system to collapse and set the fatal chain in motion.
User:
Well, and then people got richer again. Citizens today live very luxuriously compared to back then.
Gemini:
Prosperity has indeed multiplied massively when compared to the bitter misery of the 19th century. The vast majority of people today no longer have to turn every cent to survive and have access to education, medicine, and security that factory workers back then could not even dream of. However, this modern luxury comes at a price.
The flip side of enormous prosperity growth and modern technology is that we have increased the pace of exploiting nature once again drastically. While people back then acted out of sheer necessity to survive the next winter, we today consume and seal resources for convenience and growth – and thereby leave even deeper ecological footprints.
User:
So people will feel that again in 100 to 180 years.
Gemini:
That is exactly how the circle closes. Just as we are footing the bill today for the decisions from the 1850s, the generation in 100 years will pay the price for what we consume in resources, seal soils, and heat up the climate today – despite knowing better.
Back then it was blind necessity that drove them to these interventions, while with us today it is often rather convenience or holding on to pure economic growth. The bill is simply always pushed a bit further into the future.
