Technology
HOW PREPARED ARE EU DRINKING WATER FIRMS FOR THE REVISED DRINKING WATER DIRECTIVE?
With the new Drinking Water Directive gradually rolling out across the EU, Kara Sadler asks “Are we ready?”
Having worked in drinking water quality for over a decade, I have seen the role of monitoring and testing evolve signifi cantly.
Early in my career, much of the focus was on demonstrating compliance, collecting samples, reporting results and meeting prescribed standards.
While that remains essential, it has become increasingly clear that the real value of monitoring lies in what the data tells us about risk, resilience and where problems may emerge next.
Whether in the laboratory, out in the fi eld or working alongside operational teams, the professionals who measure and analyse water quality are often the fi rst to see subtle changes within the water supply system.
Small shifts in trends, anomalies in results or early warning signals picked up through routine testing can make the difference between proactive intervention and reactive response.
The revised EU Drinking Water Directive (DWD) feels like a formal recognition of how good water quality management should already work.
For those who monitor, analyse and test water and wastewater, it is not simply a policy update. It’s a framework that will increasingly shape day to day practice. It will infl uence equipment choices and raise expectations around how data is used to inform decisions.
Water safety plans, the directive and DWI guidance
A central feature of the revised Drinking Water Directive is the requirement for a risk based approach to drinking water safety. This aligns with World Health Organisation Water Safety Plan (WSP) principles.
For many UK water companies, this is not new territory. Drinking Water Safety Plans (DWSPs) have been a regulatory expectation for some time, supported by guidance from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI).
What feels particularly important from my perspective, is the increasing emphasis on consistency, clarity and demonstrable use of data within those plans.
DWI has already updated and refi ned its guidance on DWSPs. The guidance now refl ects evolving best practice and aligns
more closely with the intent of the revised directive.
While the directive sets the strategic expectation for risk based management, it is national regulation, such as that produced by DWI, that makes those expectations actionable.
How risks are described, how control measures are evidenced, and how monitoring data feeds back into risk assessment are all areas receiving greater scrutiny.
For professionals involved in monitoring and testing, this reinforces the importance of understanding how their data is used within the wider safety plan.
Results are not just outputs for compliance reporting. They’re inputs that inform risk scoring, price reviews and support assurance to regulators.
In practical terms, this places greater emphasis on trend analysis, early warning indicators and a clear understanding of what “normal” looks like within a drinking water supply system, not just whether a sample passes or fails.
Monitoring and testing: what changes on the ground?
From my own experience, this is where the directive becomes most tangible.
Monitoring programmes that once felt routine are now being revisited with fresh questions: • Why are we measuring this? • What does it tell us about risk? • How quickly can we act on the results?
That shift in mindset – from sampling as an obligation to monitoring as intelligence – is one I see refl ected across the sector.
The directive modernises monitoring requirements. It encourages risk based monitoring programmes tailored to local conditions, rather than fi xed, prescriptive sampling alone.
For laboratories and fi eld teams, this can mean both opportunities and challenges.
On the opportunity side, there is growing demand for online and continuous monitoring. As well as advanced analytical techniques for emerging contaminants, including PFAS, pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds.
And equipment suppliers are responding with increasingly sophisticated solutions. These include online analysers by companies such as Hach, Endress+Hauser and ABB, to laboratory instruments including LC MS/MS platforms for trace level analysis.
In my experience, the real challenge is not whether these technologies exist, but whether monitoring strategies, skills and budgets are aligned. This would result in data generated genuinely informing operational and risk based decision making.
Article 11 and products in contact with drinking water
Materials and products in contact with drinking water are an area I have seen receive increasing attention in recent years.
Article 11 brings welcome clarity and consistency to this space. But it also formalises responsibilities that many water quality professionals already recognise as critical.
One of the most tangible changes for both utilities and testing professionals arises from Article 11 of the directive.
From 1 January 2027, delegated and implementing acts will introduce harmonised EU wide minimum hygiene requirements for materials and products in contact with drinking water.
Historically, materials approval has been fragmented. This resulted in different national schemes and testing requirements.
Regulations and standards provide the framework. But it is the people collecting samples, validating results and questioning anomalies who give those frameworks meaning
36
IET - JANUARY / FEBRUARY 2026
IET - MONTH / MONTH 2026
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
