Ongoing efforts to institute licensure laws in the state of Colorado for practicing the profession of landscape architecture took a step back in February. After being introduced to the Senate of Veterans and Military Affairs Committee on January 13, Bill number SB03-080 received a public hearing on January 28. The bill ultimately ended up in committee and was voted down on February 11. The bill, which proposed the introduction of a practice act, needed a majority four votes to pass, but it only received three. The January 28 public hearing saw nearly 90 minutes of testimony from ASLA members Craig Coronato, Alsex Schatz, Gene Bressler, Mark Johnson, Philip Flores, William Vitek and Russell Butler II. Additional testimony in support of the bill came from landscape contractors, the development community, and the environmental community. The bill was then removed for two weeks from consideration to address the suggestions and concerns of the committee. Still, the bill was unable to move forward. ?EUR??,,????'??The defeat is a major setback,?EUR??,,????'?? said Craig Coronato, an ALSA member who has been active in the pursuit of licensure in the state. However, Coronato noted that different options will be discussed with the committee and lobbyists. In a commentary posted February 4, 2002 on the ASLA website Julia Lent, State Government Affairs, writes that the Senate Veterans and Military Affiars Committee was ?EUR??,,????'??not the appropriate committee for the bill. This was a preemptive strike against the bill, but the legislation is still viable.?EUR??,,????'?? The Colorado Council of Landscape Architects (CCLA) was formed in 2001 to pursue the legislative agenda for the state?EUR??,,????'???s landscape architects. Prior to becoming a bill, the proposal was introduced for review through the state Division of Regulatory Agencies (DORA). The landscape architecture application was first submitted to DORA on July 1, 2001. On July 30, 2002, the CCLA submitted the final materials necessary to move the proposal into the bill phase. In a letter addressed to the CCLA, ?EUR??,,????'??public interest?EUR??,,????'?? is cited as one the major reasons for the need for licensing. The following is an excerpt that explains the importance of a practice act: ?EUR??,,????'??The landscape architecture profession as a whole, including both public and private sector projects, bears responsibility for protecting the public interest. As has been noted in the rationale for regulation of architecture practice, the private sector developer is primarily motivated to generate an income-producing package that may be conveniently transferred or sold to another party, leaving the designer to be the representative of the public interest ?EUR??,,????'??? The very same principal applies to landscape architects; For example, working with private developers, landscape architects are frequently the primary consultant in creating subdivision plans, where negligent siting of land uses and lots, poor street layout, inadequate planning for public improvements, and the failure of other design and construction skills is linked to blight and resultant financial loss to property owners and the community ?EUR??,,????'??? The training and licensing of landscape architects, much the same as architects, is designed to place responsibility for the public interest, in all settings served by the profession, in the hands of the practitioners.?EUR??,,????'?? Later, in the same letter states, ?EUR??,,????'??In Colorado, consumers of landscape architecture services find limited remedies for negligent and unethical practice. The civil remedies available for the negligent practice and breach of professional contractual duties are time-consuming and expensive.?EUR??,,????'?? Forty-six states have licensure laws regulating the profession of landscape architecture. Colorado, North Dakota, New Hampshire and Vermont currently do not have laws regulating the practice of the landscape architecture.