Proposed draft — not law
PROPOSED draft language under legal review — not enacted law, not a filed bill — Illinois only.
The Data Pipeline
Continuous, encrypted submission from device to Department — with a clear liability firewall.
In plain language
A certified device is only half the story — its readings have to reach the Department in a form everyone can trust. The draft defines electronic data monitoring services: the approved intermediaries that relay real-time operational data from WQTDs and store it historically.
After May 1, 2030, the monitoring service a facility uses must be approved by and registered with the Department. It must receive data from registered WQTDs through a secure API, store it in encrypted form for the retention period the Department prescribes, and transmit it to the Department in the required form, format, and frequency. Section 12 closes the loop: water sample readings and operational data are submitted through the monitoring service directly from fixed or handheld WQTDs — no transcription step in between. And §9 authorizes the Department to conduct inspections by means of these services.
The draft also draws a deliberate liability line: an approved monitoring service acts solely as a secure data intermediary. It is neither the originator nor the certifier of the data, and providing the service does not make the vendor a licensee or co-regulated party. The facility operator remains solely responsible for the accuracy of its data and for compliance.
What the July 2026 draft already covers
All four sections here are the base draft's work: the monitoring-service definition (§3.26), the approval, encryption, and intermediary-liability rules (§11.2), electronic inspections (§9), and direct-from-device sample submission (§12).
What Pure Water Ops adds
Nothing on this theme — Pure Water Ops made no changes to these sections. They are presented here because the redline builds on them.
What it means
For operators
Reporting becomes a byproduct of running the equipment — no separate paperwork. The trade-off is explicit: the operator stays legally responsible for the accuracy of the data its devices produce.
For regulators
Inspections can lean on a continuous, standardized data stream instead of episodic site paperwork, with format and frequency set by rule.
For the public
The reading the facility sees is the reading the state sees — same pipe, no retyping, no opportunity to edit along the way.