Ontario's long-awaited Safe Drinking Water Act was attacked as soon as it was introduced yesterday for failing to protect the purity of water where such protection is most needed, at the sources.

The critics, including a representative of Concerned Walkerton Citizens, said the legislation's failings leave Ontario vulnerable to another contaminated-water tragedy similar to the one that hit Walkerton 2½ years ago, killing seven people.

"They've done half the job," said Bruce Davidson, vice-chairman of the citizens group. More than 2,000 people fell ill after drinking contaminated water from the town's system in May, 2000.

Mr. Davidson praised the legislation that was introduced yesterday for "ensuring that the people working in the water facilities are well trained" and for requiring that "equipment has to be maintained and the appropriate equipment has to be in use." A lack of training and lack of functioning equipment were among the causes of the Walkerton tragedy.

But he said the legislation, which has been promised since last May, falls short because it does not deal with protecting the lakes, rivers, streams and aquifers that supply drinking water.

"They have not provided watershed protection in this bill. They are alluding to consultations on it, but that's not a reality yet, and it should have been part of this bill," Mr. Davidson said.

The government itself acknowledged that the legislation does not protect water at its sources. Instead, it said it would establish a committee to look at how to protect the water sources that will include representatives of conservation authorities, municipalities, environmental stakeholders and agricultural groups.

Environment Minister Chris Stockwell described the plans to set up a committee as "a first step of our bold plan to develop a watershed-based source-protection framework in Ontario."

Paul Muldoon, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, criticized the lack of action in the legislation. "Without source protection, you can never protect, in the long term, drinking water."

Marilyn Churley, the New Democratic Party environment critic who first brought a safe drinking water act to the legislature, said failure to protect water at its sources is a severe deficiency.

"The government should have used the past 2½ years to develop a policy for clean water from source to tap, not just from the pipes or pumps."

She said that although Premier Ernie Eves had promised the government would improve on her proposed legislation, it has eliminated some key sections.

"The Tory bill doesn't uphold the community's right to know the status of their drinking water or give an airtight process for notifying the public of adverse tests, producing consumer confidence reports and maintaining an electronic drinking water registry."

Associate Chief Justice Dennis O'Connor, in a report earlier this year that recommended the safe water legislation, found that delays in informing residents about suspect water had increased the spread of the illness.

Liberal environment critic Jim Bradley said the legislation does not rectify the fact that the government has made major cuts to the budget of the Environment Ministry, reducing its ability to carry out the inspections that the government now praises.

Mr. Stockwell said that before year-end, the government will hire 51 more water-treatment plant inspectors, 10 supervisors and five new laboratory inspectors.

Both Mr. Bradley and Ms. Churley noted that this is the government's second failure to protect sources of drinking water. It has delayed for at least a year the imposition of regulations on livestock operations although the legislation, the Nutrient Management Act, has been passed.

Mr. Davidson, of Concerned Walkerton Citizens, suggested that the government is afraid to deal with protecting sources before the election expected next year.

"That is the tougher part of what needs to be done, because that means confronting land-use options for the agricultural industry, industrial corporations that may have activities that may be adversely affecting land and water quality and also, in many cases, especially around the [Greater Toronto Area], urban sprawl," Mr. Davidson said.