DP8

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

DP8

Does Engineer A bear an ethical obligation to independently assess and disclose foreseeable upstream flood risk arising from climate-adjusted conditions at a tidal saltmarsh crossing, even though the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not require such analysis and the climate-induced harm has not yet occurred?

Engineer A's obligation to consider climate-change-induced upstream flood risk as within the scope of the public safety paramount duty, independent of whether applicable regulations require it or whether the harm has yet occurred

Independently assess the climate adequacy of the 25-year storm standard for this tidal saltmarsh crossing, document the gap between the regulatory standard and climate-adjusted conditions in writing to Client B at the outset of design, propose a specialized hydraulic subconsultant analysis, and disclose the upstream flood risk concern through appropriate regulatory channels regardless of whether Client B authorizes the analysis

Design to the applicable 25-year storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in project correspondence to Client B that climate-adjusted conditions may warrant additional analysis, and treat the absence of a regulatory requirement for that analysis as sufficient basis for proceeding without independent assessment or disclosure of the upstream flood risk

Assess the climate adequacy of the applicable standard and document the regulatory gap internally, but limit disclosure to Client B to a verbal recommendation for additional analysis and proceed with design under the 25-year standard without written documentation of the gap or formal proposal to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, treating the preliminary nature of the judgment as insufficient to trigger a formal written obligation

Engineer A