Loading…
Loading…
Proposed draft — not law
PROPOSED draft language under legal review — not enacted law, not a filed bill — Illinois only.
Most draft legislation circulates privately, and the questions its authors could not answer stay private too. This page does the opposite: these are the eight decisions the Pure Water Ops redline of 210 ILCS 125 deliberately leaves open, published before counsel resolves them.
Publishing the open questions is the transparency story. A bill whose central promise is trustworthy, tamper-evident records should be drafted the same way — with its uncertainties on the record, not smoothed over. Where Pure Water Ops has a position, it is stated; where a decision belongs to counsel, the Department, or the General Assembly, that is stated too.
How do we guarantee video-derived safety counts never cross into biometric identification?
The original business ask included knowing who is in the pool. Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (740 ILCS 14) carries a private right of action and statutory damages, and the draft's §3.27 deliberately limits video systems to aggregate counts, with a hard BIPA firewall written into the definition itself.
Should the electronic permitting path stay optional, or become mandatory?
Mandating the electronic path raises real access concerns for small and rural operators who may lack the connectivity, staff, or budget for a digital-first process.
Is 3 years the right retention floor for monitoring data — and who sets the final number?
Longer retention strengthens incident reconstruction; it also raises storage cost and data-minimization questions that deserve a deliberate answer.
Should the permitting and inspection sections stay in the §11 cluster, or move elsewhere in the act?
The redline appends §3.28–3.29 and §11.4–11.7 in sequence so the additions are easy to isolate on review. But the §11 cluster is otherwise about the Department's agents and monitoring — the permitting and inspection material may belong elsewhere in the act's structure.
Should an expired suction outlet cover be an automatic violation, or a flagged condition that triggers follow-up?
The redline makes the manufacturer-rated expiration date a registered, flagged field — tracking, not an automatic violation. Automatic violations are a blunt instrument; no flag at all is how expired covers go unnoticed today.
Should the Department be authorized to publish aggregate compliance data to the public?
Nothing in the draft authorizes the Department to publish or share aggregate compliance data — which is why this site promises no public compliance dashboards. Granting that authority intersects with FOIA and privacy scope that deserves its own deliberate treatment rather than a bolt-on clause.
Should any Department-approved system be required to export a facility's data in a standard format on request?
Approved-vendor regimes can quietly create single-vendor moats: once a facility's history lives in one system, leaving that system becomes prohibitively expensive. The draft currently has no export requirement.
Do all operative sections phase in consistently on May 1, 2030?
The base draft's operative sections use May 1, 2030, and the PWO additions adopt the same date. As sections are relocated or reworked in review, the dates can silently diverge.