Broward Directory Blog

May 10 2007

Is Rotating Custody Really So Bad?

Tag: Business,Financial,General,Government — Webmaster @ 8:54 pm

By Colette Lee Corcoran, M.Ed., LMHC, Esquire
Corcoran, Colette Lee – Corcoran & Elkins, LLP
100 Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1910
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
(954) 522-5500

Colette Lee Corcoran, M.Ed., L.M.H.C., Esquire is a full time practicing attorney specializing in the area of family law, which includes divorce, prenuptial agreements, child custody, child support, and post judgment modifications. Colette is also a Florida Licensed Mental Health Counselor and is a member of the Adjunct Faculty at Florida Atlantic University’s Counselor Education Department. Colette has a unique combination of a counseling psychology background and the legal expertise needed to resolve complex family law matters. She is committed to providing superior legal representation with integrity and professionalism, and she strives to develop relationships based on trust, honesty, and open communication.

The number of couples divorcing with minor children has increased at an incredible rate. The incidence of divorce in the United States rose continually for a century before finally slightly declining since 1981 from 5.3 to 4.3 divorces per 1,000 people in the year 2000. (Bureau of the Census, 2001). The rate of divorce in Florida remains at 5.3 divorces per 1,000 people and is historically higher than the national average. (Florida Office of Vital Statistics, 2000). When parents divorce, there is a necessary restructuring of the parental rights and responsibilities with regard to the children. Unfortunately, many divorces involve a custody dispute.

What is the Impact of Divorce on Children?

Divorcing persons and their children proceed through stages of grief similar to that which one would experience as a result of the death of a loved one, with a range of emotions from hurt, anger, grief, denial, bargaining, depression, and acceptance (Hozman & Froiland, 1976). Amato and Keith (1991b) examined ninety-two (92) studies involving over 13,000 children and compared children of divorced single-parent families with children of continuously intact families on eight (8) measures of well-being:

(a) academic achievement
(b) conduct
(c) psychological adjustment
(d) self-concept
(e) social adjustment
(f) mother-child relations
(g) father-child relations
(h) other.

Amato and Keith (1991b) concluded that parental divorce and the factors associated with it, parental conflict, economic disadvantage, or parental absence, lower the well-being of children on all eight (8) measures of well being examined. The authors also note that their research suggests that parental conflict seems to have the most overreaching negative effect on children.

The same researchers, Amato and Keith (1991a) also reviewed the literature on adult children of divorce and in their meta-analysis involving 81,000 people in twenty-seven (27) studies and concluded that parental divorce has lasting negative implications for adult attainment and quality of life. Amato and Keith (1991a) speculate that divorce and it’s consequences, mainly parental absence, economic hardship, and conflict exposure, increase the risk of problems primarily in late adolescence and early adulthood. When comparing adult children of divorced parents with adult children of intact marriages, adult children of divorced parents have less educational attainment (McLanahan, 1985), are more likely to have a child while unmarried (McLanahan & Bumpass, 1988), and are more likely to get divorced (Glenn & Kramer, 1987).

Research suggests that the well being of children whose parents were still together compared to children whose parents had divorced was significantly lower for those children whose parents were divorced. Amato and Keith (1991a) performed a meta-analysis of ninety-two (92) studies regarding same and concluded that children of divorced parents scored significantly lower than those children of parents who remained together on academic achievement, conduct, psychological adjustment, self-concept, and social competence.

The most recent research trend seems to reflect that it was not the actual divorce which negatively impacted the children but rather it was the parental conflict which negatively impacted the children. There is a strong sentiment in the literature that the more serious harm to children comes not from the actual event of divorce but from the chronic conflict surrounding the divorce which traps “children in a maelstrom of experiences and emotions that can erode the child’s relationship with one or both parents.” (Elrod, 2001). In the past five (5) years, the recognition of the conflict surrounding divorcing families has become more widespread (Elrod, 2001). The 2000 Wingspread Conference advocated for the interdisciplinary collaboration among mental health professionals, lawyers, and judges in making the systemic changes necessary to assist family members involved in high conflict divorce litigation (Wingspread Conferees, 2001). The report generated at the Wingspread Conference describes an action plan for each profession to protect and restore healthy family interactions during conflict (Wingspread Conferees, 2001).

What is the Story with Custody?

Custody generally refers to the rights and responsibilities of parents with regard to their children. Legal custody involves the right and responsibility of the parent to make health and welfare decisions, while physical or residential custody is the right and responsibility of the parent to reside with the child. The custodial parent is usually the divorced parent with whom the children live a majority of the time and who is typically the recipient of child support.

In the early 19th century, children were considered property and as such, the father owned all of the property so that in the case of a divorce, the father was arbitrarily reward custody of the children (Gardner, 1986). Thereafter, for several decades the pendulum swung in the other direction and the courts viewed the mother as the primary caretaker of the children and consequently awarded custody to the mother under the “tender years doctrine” (Gardner, 1986). In the 1970s, there was a trend in the United States toward gender neutralization of the child custody statutes, which essentially removed the preference for the mother to be appointed physical custody of minor children in divorce litigation (Bahr, Howe, Morill-Mann & Bahr, 1994; Gardner, 1986; Laing-Klaff, 1982 ). Additionally, notwithstanding which parent was awarded custody, the revised laws reflected that the non-custodial parents shall be given liberal access to the children (Gardner, 1986).

Gardner (1986) notes that in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the concept of “joint custody” gained in popularity and the idea that one parent should have custody and the other be the “visitor” was viewed as inegalitarian, putting the “visiting parent” in an inferior position. Gardner (1986) explains that the basic theory behind joint custody is that every attempt to approximate the kind of situation that prevailed in the marital home prior to the dissolution, in which both parents contributed to the child’s upbringing should be made. Joint custody has been defined in various ways and has also been called rotating custody, alternating physical custody, split custody, and shared custody. Generally, joint custody is defined as shared parental responsibility with the parents sharing physical custody of the minor children (Perrow, 2003). Some jurisdictions strictly define rotating custody to include only those arrangements wherein the parents each have fifty-percent (50%) of the overnights with the minor children (McNeely, 1998) and other jurisdictions define rotating custody as any arrangement wherein the children spend thirty to fifty percent (30%-50%) of the overnights with one parent and the remaining time with the other parent (Perrow, 2003). Some states allow for a reduction in child support to be paid where the parent to pay child support spends forty-percent (40%) or more of the overnights with the minor children (e.g., Florida) (Fla. Stat. s. 61.13 (2005)).

As a consequence thereof, fathers now had a legal right to argue for joint custody of the minor children in a divorce proceeding. With this new legal trend came increased conflict and litigation between parents (Gardner, 1986) and the possibility that the father can be awarded custody of the children or that parents might in fact share the children in a joint custody arrangement. Gardner (1986) even goes so far as to assert that at no point in Western civilization has there been more litigation over custody.

What Does the Scientific Literature Say?

In a study with a national probability sample of 13,017 individuals age 19 and over, representing 9,643 American families and households, Kelly, Redenbach, & Rinaman (2005) found that in 80% of the cases, the mother received sole physical custody of the minor child or children. The remaining 20% of the cases were evenly divided between the father having sole physical custody and joint custody. Of those cases designated as joint custody cases, about half of the cases involved situations where the children were spending approximately 50% of the time with each parent and the remaining were sharing physical custody but to a lesser degree (e.g., school year with the mother and summer with the father). Kelly, Redenbach, & Rinaman (2005), citing Fox & Kelly (1995), Melli et al (1997), Seltzer (1990) and Teachman & Polonko (1990), note that the distribution found in their sample was similar to that found with other divorce samples. The authors also concluded from their research that three selection effects in the determination of joint physical custody outcomes were evident: the measures of pre-separation conflict and post-separation conflict were negatively related to the odds of a joint custody arrangement as compared to maternal custody (Kelly, Redenbach, & Rinaman, 2005). Kelly, Redenbach, & Rinaman (2005) suggest, based on their research that parents with low-conflict marriages and divorce-negotiation processes are the parents who tend to select joint custody. The authors also not that total parental income was also positively correlated with joint custody outcome (Kelly, Redenbach, & Rinaman, 2005).

Previous studies have yielded inconsistent results about the implications of contact with nonresidential parents for children in single-parent households (Amato, 1994). Amato (1994) tested the hypothesis that children’s contact with nonresident parents decreases children’s behavior problems when inter-parental conflict is low but increases children’s behavior problems when inter-parental conflict is high. Amato (1994b) analyzed from 1,285 children in single-parent families from the National Survey of Families and Households and found that the hypothesis was supported among boys from divorced families but found no support for the hypothesis among girls, regardless of family background.

The Maccoby et al. (1990) research indicated that parents who engage in a joint physical custody arrangement were not more likely to engage in antagonistic coparenting and were more likely to have supportive communication as compared to the traditional single custodial family parents. Maccoby et al. (1990) also reported based on their study, where one parent had physical custody, there was higher levels of coparenting conflict, which is attributed to the arrangement not being the preference of the non-custodial parent. In conflict with the Maccoby et al, (1990) study, Arditti and Bickey (1996) report based on their research that parents with joint physical custody arrangements had higher levels of coparenting conflict and antagonism. Arditti and Bickey (1996) attribute the higher levels of coparenting conflict and antagonism on to the increased amount of contact required between the parents facilitating a joint custody arrangement.

Hendrickson (1991) examined children’s psychological adjustment, parental support, parental conflict and child custody arrangements of families whose marriages had terminated and found that children in shared custody arrangements were better psychologically adjusted that those in sole custody arrangements. When controlling for gender in his sample, Hendrickson (1991) found that girls showed better development in shared than sole custody arrangements with the boys did better in sole custody placement.

In some cases, where the court is in a position to have to determine whether rotating custody is appropriate, the court appoints a mental health professional to perform a Custody Evaluation. Generally, a custody evaluation is an examination of children’s home environment and their relationships with their parents used by the court in making a determination regarding custody. Custody evaluators working with children of divorcing parents have been offered minimal, if any, professional training on the issues involved in working with children of divorcing parents and the interventions. Stern, Simpson, Gage, and Worley (2000) examined professionals who have frequent interaction with children and parents who divorce and found that only fifty percent (50%) had never received any specific training working with divorce. Of those professionals who did receive divorce training, fifty percent (50%) received divorce training in a workshop, forty-five percent (45%) had conducted self-study, and seventeen percent (17%) received training in graduate school. The professionals surveyed overwhelmingly recommended that professionals working with these children should be trained in the specialty area, however, to date there are no universal requirements for counselors who work with children of divorcing parents.

What Does it all Mean for a Specific Case?

There is certainly a deficit of research examining the full extent and nature of the psychological impact of rotating custody on children of divorce. Based on the available scientific literature regarding rotating custody, it is difficult for courts to uniformly rule which custody arrangement which most appropriately suits the best interest of the children. Consequently, where rotating custody is an issue, there must a close analysis of the specific facts of each case to make the determination.

What are the Recommended Areas for Future Research?

It is clear that future research needs to be done to gain insight into the characteristics incident to rotating custody arrangements following divorce. Additionally, researchers need to compare the short term psychological effects of rotating custody on minor children post divorce to the short term psychological effects on minor children post divorce who are awarded to one parent or the other parent when controlling for conflict.

References

Adamsons, K. & Pasley, K. (2006). Coparenting Following Divorce and Relationship Dissolution. In M. A. Fine & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 241-261). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991a). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 43-58.

Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991b). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 26-46.

Bahr, S. J., Howe, J., D., Morrill-Mann, M., Bahr, M.S. (1994). Trends in child custody awards: Has the removal of the maternal preference made a difference? Family Law Quarterly, 28, 247-267.

Bureau of the Census. (2001). Profile of Demographic Characteristics: 2000 (Table DP-1). Bethesda, MD: Congressional Information Service.

Elrod, L. D. (2001). A Minnesota comparative family law symposium: reforming the system to protect children in high conflict custody cases. William Mitchell Law Review, 28, 495-536.

Gardner, R. A. (1986). Child custody litigation: A guide for parents and mental health professionals. Cresskill, NJ: Creative Therapeutics.

Geelhoed, R. J., Blaisure, K. R., & Geasler, M. J. (2001). Court affiliated parent education: Status of court-connected programs for children whose parents are separating or divorcing, 39, 393-404.

Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1987). The marriages and divorces of the children of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 811-825.

Hendrickson, R. (1991). Unpublished dissertation. Child custody in divorce: A comparison of sole and shared custody arrangements, and inter-parental support/ conflict levels. United States International University, 213 pages.

Hozman, T. L., & Froiland, D. J. (1976). Families in divorce: A proposed model for counseling the children. The Family Coordinator, 35(3), 271-276.

Laing-Klaff, R. (1982). The tender years doctrine: A defense. California Law Review, 70, 335- 372.Maccoby, E. E., Depner, C. E., & Mnookin, R. H. (1990). Coparenting in the second year after divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 141-155.

McLanahan, S. S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 873-901. McLanahan, S. S., & Bumpass, L. (1988). Intergenerational consequences of family disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 130-152.

McNeely, C. A., Lagging behind the Times: Parenthood, Custody, and Gender Bias in the Family Court. Florida State University Law Review, 25, 891-956.

Perrow, C. (2003). The origin and evolution of Florida’s presumption against rotating custody: A guideline for Florida judges. Florida State University Law Review, 30, 503-527.

Stern, H. P., Simpson, P., Gage, T., & Worley, K. (2000). Professionals’ perceptions of divorce involving children. University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review, 22, 593-605.

Wingspread Conferees. (2001). High-conflict custody cases: Reforming the system for children. Family Court Review, 39, 146-157.

Miami Family Law

South Florida Water Management District

May 10 2007

Phase III Water Restriction Imposed in Broward and Palm Beach

Tag: General — Webmaster @ 1:04 pm

Water managers on Thursday imposed once-a-week watering restrictions on Broward and Palm Beach counties, setting the toughest limits ever in response to one of the worst droughts in history.

The new rules start May 16. Odd numbered addresses to water yards on Saturdays, between 4 and 8 a.m, with hand watering also allowed between 5 and 7 p.m. Even numbered addresses are allowed to water between the same times on Sundays.

——————————————————————

Article from SFWMD

Continued Drought Conditions Force New Water Restrictions
Extreme Water Shortage Declared for Palm Beach and Broward Counties;
Severe Water Shortage Expanded to Martin & St. Lucie Counties

West Palm Beach, FL – With recent rains doing little to alleviate drought-related conditions across South Florida, the South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) Governing Board today declared an extreme water shortage for eastern Broward and Palm Beach counties. The two southeast coastal counties are the first primarily residential areas to be placed in modified Phase III water use restrictions since the agency adopted a phased water shortage plan more than two decades ago.

"During the past two months, the District has called upon local businesses, residents and our government partners to practice aggressive water conservation to stretch our municipal water supplies, and these efforts have made a difference," said SFWMD Executive Director Carol Ann Wehle. "Unfortunately, South Florida is facing one of the worst droughts on record. Four of our coastal wellfields are at risk of saltwater intrusion, and we simply need to do more to protect our regional water resources."

The following new restrictions will become effective at 12:01 a.m., Wednesday, May 16:

• Eastern Palm Beach, Broward, and a small portion of Martin County are required to follow Phase III restrictions, limiting outdoor water use to one day a week.

• Agricultural users in the Indian Prairie Basin will transition to Phase III restrictions.

• As part of a severe water shortage declaration in the District’s Upper East Coast Service Area, Martin and St. Lucie counties will be required to follow modified Phase II restrictions, limiting outdoor water use to two days a week.

• In response to concerns over elevated chloride levels in coastal wellfields along eastern Broward and Palm Beach counties, water utilities in Lake Worth, Lantana, Hallandale and Dania Beach are required to cease or shift pumpage from certain coastal wells.

At 9.37 feet above sea level, the current water level in Lake Okeechobee is within five inches of its record low of 8.97 feet, recorded in 2001. The primary back-up water supply for most South Florida residents, the lake is so low this year that its waters cannot be used to replenish the regional supply. If drought conditions persist, water managers expect the lake level to reach a new record low elevation within weeks.

Over the past several weeks, the District has documented more than 200 water restriction violations by consumptive use permit holders such as homeowners associations, golf courses and other water users. Under Florida State Statutes, the District is authorized to seek civil penalties of up to $10,000 per offense per day for water use violations. In addition, local municipalities have reported issuing more than 9,400 warnings and citations for violations of the current residential and commercial water use restrictions.

For additional information, residents can call the SFWMD's toll-free Water Shortage Hotline at 1-800-662-8876 or contact their regional SFWMD Service Center. Helpful water conservation tips, TV and radio public service announcements, and specific information on current water use restrictions are available at www.sfwmd.gov/conserve .

**More Water Shortage Materials**
Just the Facts brochure (PDF)	Low water Photo 1	Dry Cypress Photo
New Water Shortage Map (PDF)	Low water Photo 2	Port Mayaca Photo
Rainfall Chart (GIF)	Low water Photo 3
Saltwater Intrusion Graphic

SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Eastern Palm Beach, Broward, and a small portion of Martin County served by Tequesta Water Utilities – Phase III Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase III water restrictions target outdoor water use, limiting lawn watering and car washing to one day a week: Saturdays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for odd-numbered addresses; Sundays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for even-numbered addresses.

These limitations and other actions and are intended to produce a 45 percent water use reduction by the combined conservation efforts of all users, including agricultural, industrial, commercial, golf course, landscaping and residential water users. The Phase III restrictions in this region apply to users who get their water from public utilities, private wells, canals, ponds and lakes.

Lake Okeechobee Service Area – Everglades Agricultural Basins – Phase III Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase III mandatory water use restrictions remain in place for the Everglades Agricultural Area. Agricultural water users are required to reduce their consumption of Lake Okeechobee-connected surface water by 45 percent.

Lake Istokpoga Area/Upper Indian Prairie Basin (portions of Highlands and Glades counties) – Phase III Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Effective May 11, permitted agricultural and other area users who withdraw water directly from surface water sources connected to Lake Istokpoga will transition to Phase III water restrictions in incremental stages as the water level of Lake Istokpoga continues to drop below specified thresholds. Users were notified of the specific tiers representing 35 and 45 percent cutbacks and are encouraged to voluntarily exercise additional water conservation measures as practicable.

Martin and St. Lucie Counties – Phase II Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase II water restrictions target outdoor water use, limiting lawn watering and car washing to two days a week: Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for odd numbered addresses; Thursdays and Sundays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for even-numbered addresses.
These limitations and other actions and are intended to produce a 30 percent water use reduction by the combined conservation efforts of all users, including agricultural, industrial, commercial, golf course, landscaping and residential water users. The Phase II restrictions in this region apply to users who draw their water from public utilities, private wells, canals, ponds and lakes.

Lake Okeechobee Service Area – Phase II Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase II mandatory water use restrictions remain in place for areas surrounding Lake Okeechobee, predominantly impacting agricultural, industrial and commercial water users in parts of Hendry, Glades, Okeechobee, Lee, Martin and western Palm Beach counties. They also apply to a small number of residential users whose water source is Lake Okeechobee – or any of the surface water canals recharged by the lake – and utility customers in South Bay, Belle Glade, Pahokee and Clewiston. Agricultural water users in these areas are required to reduce their surface water consumption by 30 percent. Residential users irrigating from surface water canals should continue limiting lawn watering, boat and car washing to two days per week: Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for odd numbered addresses; Thursdays and Sundays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for even-numbered addresses.

The Phase II restrictions in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area apply to users who draw their water from Lake Okeechobee, public utilities, canals, ponds and lakes. Groundwater sources (wells) are not restricted. The SFWMD is monitoring conditions weekly to assess the need for any further restrictions.

Miami-Dade and Monroe Counties – Phase II Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase II restrictions remain in place for Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, limiting lawn watering and car washing to two days a week: Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for odd-numbered addresses; Thursdays and Sundays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for even-numbered addresses.

These limitations and other actions and are intended to produce a 30 percent water use reduction by agricultural, industrial, commercial, golf course, landscaping and residential water users. The Phase II restrictions in this region apply to users who draw their water from public utilities, private wells, canals, ponds and lakes.

Lee, Collier, Hendry, and Glades Counties; portion of Charlotte County – Phase II Mandatory Water Use Restrictions
Phase II restrictions remain in place in Lee, Collier, Hendry and Glades counties, along with a portion of Charlotte County, limiting lawn watering and car washing to two days a week: Wednesdays and Saturdays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for odd-numbered addresses; Thursdays and Sundays from 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. for even-numbered addresses.

These limitations and other actions and are intended to produce a 30 percent water use reduction by agricultural, industrial, commercial, golf course, landscaping and residential water users. The Phase II restrictions in this region apply to users who get their water from public utilities, private wells, canals, ponds and lakes.

Phase II and Phase III restrictions allow low-volume, spot-watering using a hose with an automatic shut-off nozzle from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on the designated landscape watering days. Additional watering days and times also have been allowed for new landscaping over a 30-day establishment period.

The use of 100 percent reclaimed water, an alternative water source, is not subject to restrictions. The use of water for health, fire, safety and other essential purposes also is not restricted.

For more information, call the SFWMD's toll-free
Water Shortage Hotline at 1-800-662-8876 or visit www.sfwmd.gov/conserve.

###

The South Florida Water Management District is a regional, governmental agency that oversees the water resources in the southern half of the state – 16 counties from Orlando to the Keys. It is the oldest and largest of the state's five water management districts. The agency mission is to manage and protect water resources of the region by balancing and improving water quality, flood control, natural systems and water supply. A key initiative is cleanup and restoration of the Everglades.

————————————————————————

Florida is in the middle of one of the worst droughts ever recorded!

SFWMD Water Shortage Hotline (800) 662-8876

Waterwise Landscaping

For more information about the Storm – Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

May 09 2007

The First Storm of the Season – Tropical Storm Andrea

Tag: General — Webmaster @ 12:31 pm

From the Sun-Sentinel Hurricane Center

The first storm of the season "Andrea" arrives early – the image below is a 5 day forecast

Satellite image

May 02 2007

What are your ideas about water conservation?

Tag: General — Webmaster @ 8:50 am

I wanted to see how many ideas people can share about how to conserver water.

Here are a few ideas I think will help.

Fix all leaking faucets
Take showers in a different way
- Turn the shower on and get wet,
- Then turn the shower off
- Lather up completely
- Turn the shower on to rinse off
Use the washer only when you have a full load
Water your lawn at 4 AM so the soil will soak in as much water as possible.
Use a 2 quart filled jug of water in the toilet tank (make sure there is enough water to flush)
When you pour a glass of water to drink – drink it all – don't pour it down the drain
Wash your car on the lawn
Build a catch basis for the rain water runoff use the roof gutters
- use the water to water your landscape

Let's hear what you have to say.

Comments (1)

May 01 2007

South Florida – year-round water restrictions

Tag: General — Webmaster @ 1:45 pm

Get used to it: S. Florida faces year-round water restrictions

By Andy Reid
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

May 1, 2007

Battling one of the worst droughts in history, South Florida remains behind much of the state when it comes to requiring residents to save water.

Year-round water restrictions are the norm in central, southwest and northeast Florida, but people living along the lower east coast didn’t face forced cutbacks until March 22.

Even then, South Florida water managers started with three-times-a-week limits on lawn watering, and when conditions worsened they moved to twice-a-week limits April 13.

That was more than a year after northeast Florida imposed twice-a-week restrictions and about four years after that became the rule along much of the Gulf Coast, which prior to that had been under various restrictions for a decade. The Tampa Bay area went to once-a-week water limits in January.

“Anything more than two days a week is pretty much wasteful,” said Michael Molligan, spokesman for the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which covers the Tampa Bay area.

Unlike the rest of the state, South Florida has a canal system, Lake Okeechobee and Everglades water to supplement underground supplies, and that has kept water restrictions as emergency measures, said Chip Merriam, district deputy executive director.

Now, with new requirements already in place for communities to develop more alternative water supplies, South Florida water managers are working on their own proposal for year-round restrictions to encourage conservation.

The complete story: