DP5

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

DP5

After the City approves the Traditional Approach and refuses to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, is Engineer K obligated to formally document the unmitigated risk in writing, advise the City that the approved design may not be successful in equitably protecting all members of the public, and evaluate whether the magnitude of the residual harm requires escalation to relevant public authorities?

Engineer K Post-Approval Obligations: Formal Written Documentation, Project Success Notification, and Escalation Threshold After City Refuses to Mitigate Disproportionate Flood Risk

Formally document in writing the unmitigated disproportionate flood risk and the City's refusal to act, advise the City in writing that the approved design may not be successful in equitably protecting all members of the public and may conflict with the City's climate resilience policy, and evaluate whether the residual harm requires escalation to relevant public authorities or regulatory bodies

Defer to the City's approved decision and proceed with implementation of the Traditional Approach without further written documentation, advisement, or escalation, treating the City Council presentation disclosure as a complete discharge of all post-approval professional obligations

Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer