DP5

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP5

Should Principal Engineer R treat satisfaction of City C's 25-year recurrence interval regulatory standard as fully discharging Firm BWJ's public welfare obligation in the stormwater design, or does the Public Welfare Paramount principle impose an independent obligation to exercise site-specific professional judgment about whether the minimum standard is adequate to protect neighboring properties from foreseeable flooding harm?

Firm BWJ / Principal Engineer R: Regulatory Compliance Verification vs. Public Welfare Paramount in Stormwater Design — Whether Satisfying the 25-Year Standard Discharges the Engineer's Full Ethical Obligation

Design the stormwater system to satisfy City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard and treat regulatory approval as fully discharging the public welfare obligation, without independently assessing whether the minimum standard is adequate to protect neighboring downstream properties under foreseeable post-development conditions

Design the stormwater system to satisfy the regulatory standard while exercising independent site-specific professional judgment about whether the minimum standard adequately protects neighboring downstream properties — flagging to Developer G and City C when site conditions suggest the regulatory floor may be insufficient, and recommending enhanced design criteria or post-construction verification where warranted

Principal Engineer R