BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation
Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client
In Case 14-8, Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client, and that analysis was working its way through the court system. During the legal review, Engineer A resigned from the firm and went to work for the State – the State was an objector to the analysis A prepared.
Board of Ethical Review analyzing City Engineer J's conflict of interest
Provides precedential reasoning for evaluating City Engineer J's conflict of interest arising from prior employment with Firm BWJ; establishes that an engineer transitioning from private firm to a public agency reviewing that firm's work must consider ongoing duties to former employer and client, and may require consent before participating in related proceedings
We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance; the case discusses Engineer A's work providing forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation
once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
Board of Ethical Review analyzing Principal Engineer R's obligations upon discovery of design errors
Provides precedential reasoning for Principal Engineer R's obligation to acknowledge and disclose the stormwater calculation errors; establishes that upon discovering inaccurate data underlying a prior report, an engineer has an affirmative obligation to advise the client and revise conclusions accordingly
Although dealing with unethical use of an overbroad indemnification clause, BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind.
Board of Ethical Review to ground the professional responsibility acknowledgment obligation applicable to Principal Engineer R
Provides contextual support for the principle that engineers must accept responsibility for their professional services; cited to establish the foundational ethical tenet that engineers, as members of a learned profession, are expected to use their skill and expertise for the betterment of mankind and must own their professional errors
The Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions
Board of Ethical Review in conjunction with BER Case 16-7 to establish error disclosure obligations for Principal Engineer R
Cited alongside BER Case 16-7 to reinforce the affirmative obligation of engineers to disclose inaccurate data and revise conclusions when errors are discovered; provides a similar fact pattern supporting the duty to acknowledge and correct professional errors
CausalLink_J Reviews and Approves BWJ Pla
CausalLink_R Acknowledges Error and Remed
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'location': 'City C, State Q', 'regulatory_role': 'Subdivision plan approval authority'}
City C acting as the municipal authority that engaged third-party engineering firm IBM to review the subdivision design following flooding complaints, bearing authority over the review process and obligations to protect public welfare and investigate credible complaints of design deficiency and conflicts of interest.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm IBM'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Developer G'}
{'type': 'regulatory_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design
City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions
City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation - 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard
City C Subdivision Regulations - Stormwater Peak Flow Requirements
Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
Firm BWJ (design obligation), City Engineer J (compliance review), Firm IBM (independent verification)
Establishes the binding performance standard that Firm BWJ's subdivision design was required to satisfy: post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must not exceed pre-development conditions. IBM's independent review found this standard was not met.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'current_employer': 'City C', 'former_employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'transition_timing': 'Assumed at least one year before subdivision contract'}
City Engineer J previously worked for private Firm BWJ and now holds the municipal City Engineer position responsible for reviewing and approving design documents submitted by BWJ, raising public conflict-of-interest concerns. The BER concludes no ethical issue if the transition occurred at least one year before the subdivision work was under contract.
{'type': 'current_employer', 'target': 'City C'}
{'type': 'former_employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
{'type': 'review_authority_over', 'target': 'Firm BWJ Subdivision Submittal'}
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract
if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise
when Engineer J left Firm BWJ and joined the City C
City Engineer J Causal Reasoning Conflict
City Engineer J was required to apply causal reasoning to trace the relationship between his prior employment at Firm BWJ and the potential compromise of his independent judgment in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans, establishing the causal chain connecting the revolving-door relationship to the ethical compromise of the plan review process.
The causal chain from City Engineer J's prior employment at BWJ to the compromised plan review approval is central to the ethical analysis of the revolving-door conflict of interest in this case.
Apparent failure to apply causal reasoning to recognize how the prior employment relationship causally compromised the integrity of the plan review and approval process.
City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ.
Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ.
City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recognition
Conflict of Interest Recognition and Recusal Capability
City Engineer J was required to possess the capability to recognize that his prior employment as a principal at Firm BWJ created an actual or apparent conflict of interest when reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ, and to assess whether recusal or disclosure was required.
City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, approved the subdivision plans submitted by his former employer without apparent recusal or disclosure of the prior employment relationship, leading to property owner complaints of ethical compromise.
Apparent failure to recuse or disclose, as evidenced by property owners' complaints that City Engineer J is ethically compromised due to his former employment with Firm BWJ, and by J's approval of BWJ's plans without apparent recusal.
The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J.
City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recognition BWJ Plan Review
City Engineer J needed capability to recognize that prior employment with Firm BWJ created an actual or apparent conflict of interest when reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans in the City Engineer role, and to assess whether recusal or disclosure was required
Members of the public perceived City Engineer J's former employment with BWJ as a conflict of interest in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans
Public perception of conflict of interest in J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community.
The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised.
City Engineer J Conflict of Interest Recusal Former Employer BWJ Review
City Engineer J, formerly employed by Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, prompting public concern about conflict of interest. The BER conditionally found no ethical issue only because it assumed J left BWJ at least one year before the subdivision work was under contract.
Conflict of Interest Recusal from Former Employer Work Obligation
City Engineer J was obligated to recuse themselves from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred within approximately one year before the subdivision work was under contract, given the appearance of bias and potential ongoing loyalty obligations to the former employer.
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
At the time of reviewing and approving BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Public Role
BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer transitioning from private firm to a public agency adverse to the former employer's interests must obtain consent before participating; the present case assessed whether this constraint applied given the temporal gap in J's transition
City Engineer J was constrained by ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ — arising from the prior employment relationship — from participating in City C actions adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining BWJ's consent, mirroring the constraint identified in BER Case 14-8 where Engineer A could not represent the State's adverse interest against a former private employer without prior consent.
During the period following City Engineer J's transition from Firm BWJ to City C, particularly during review of BWJ's subdivision plans
BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
City Engineer J Former Employer Loyalty Boundary BWJ Transition
City Engineer J transitioned from private Firm BWJ to the public City Engineer role. BER Case 14-8 established that engineers transitioning from private to public roles retain ongoing loyalty obligations to former employers and clients, requiring consent before adverse participation.
Former Employer Loyalty Boundary in Public Role Obligation
City Engineer J was obligated to honor ongoing loyalty duties to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients, including refraining from participating in proceedings adverse to BWJ's interests without first obtaining consent from BWJ and its clients, particularly if J's transition to City C occurred during or shortly after active project work involving BWJ.
Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client.
Upon and following transition from Firm BWJ to City C, particularly during any proceedings involving BWJ's work
BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J's situation.
the BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
City Engineer J Former Employer Ongoing Duty Recognition
Revolving Door Recusal Obligation Assessment Capability
City Engineer J needed capability to recognize and honor ongoing professional loyalty duties owed to former employer Firm BWJ and its clients when transitioning to the City C municipal role
City Engineer J transitioned from private Firm BWJ to public City C role and was responsible for reviewing BWJ subdivision plans
Assessment of whether ongoing loyalty duties to BWJ prohibited participation in review of BWJ's subdivision plans without former employer consent
The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client.
City Engineer J Municipal Plan Review Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as City Engineer)', 'employer': 'City C', 'title': 'City Engineer', 'prior_employment': 'Former principal at Firm BWJ'}
City Engineer of City C who administratively reviewed and approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy, despite having been formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, raising conflict-of-interest concerns from affected property owners.
{'type': 'public_servant_to', 'target': 'City C residents and property owners'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J and are released for bidding and construction
City Engineer J was formerly a principal at Firm BWJ
Property owners also complain that City Engineer J is ethically compromised because of his former employment with Firm BWJ
City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review BWJ Subdivision
City Engineer J reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ. The BER examined whether J's former employment relationship compromised the objectivity of the plan review function, ultimately finding no ethical issue only on the assumption that J's transition occurred at least one year before the subdivision work.
Procurement Investigation Objectivity Obligation
City Engineer J was obligated to conduct the review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, and to ensure that the review was technically substantive rather than perfunctory given the potential appearance of favoritism.
City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community
During the administrative review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship
City Engineer J Objectivity Plan Review Capability
City Engineer J needed capability to conduct review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans with full objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from prior employment relationship with BWJ
City Engineer J administratively reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy
Administrative review and approval of subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ
City Engineer J Municipal Plan Review Engineer -- City Engineer of City C who administratively reviewed and approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ for conformance with city policy
City Engineer J Prior Employment Conflict
From the time City Engineer J reviewed and approved Firm BWJ's subdivision plans through the present complaints
Prior Employment Approval Conflict State
City Engineer J's approval of Firm BWJ subdivision plans
Not yet terminated — conflict and its consequences remain active in the facts presented
The plans were administratively reviewed for conformance with City C policy and approved by City Engineer J
City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, approved the subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ without disclosed recusal or conflict management
City Engineer J Prior Employment Recusal BWJ Subdivision Plans
City Engineer J formerly held a principal role at Firm BWJ before transitioning to City C; members of the public raised conflict of interest concerns when J reviewed BWJ's subdivision plans; BER evaluated whether J was ethically compromised
City Engineer J was constrained from reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ without first evaluating whether the prior employment relationship — particularly if recent — created an appearance of compromised impartiality requiring recusal from the administrative approval process.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
During the period of City C's review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision design documents
The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ
City Engineer J Prior Employment Recusal Constraint
City Engineer J approved Firm BWJ's subdivision stormwater plans despite having previously been a principal at Firm BWJ, creating an appearance of compromised impartiality that property owners subsequently challenged.
City Engineer J, as a former principal of Firm BWJ, was ethically constrained from conducting the administrative review and approval of subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ, and was required to recuse himself from that approval authority to avoid a conflict of interest arising from his prior employment relationship.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
At the time of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans for City C
City Engineer J Procurement Conflict Awareness
City Engineer J was required to possess the ethical perception capability to recognize the ethically salient features of his situation — specifically, that his prior employment as a principal at Firm BWJ created a conflict of interest that compromised or appeared to compromise his independent judgment in reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans.
City Engineer J's approval of his former employer's subdivision plans without recusal or disclosure indicates a failure of ethical perception regarding the conflict of interest created by the revolving-door employment relationship.
Apparent failure of ethical perception, as J approved BWJ's plans without apparent recognition of or response to the conflict of interest created by his prior employment relationship.
City Engineer J Revolving Door Conflict Temporal Assessment
City Engineer J needed capability to assess whether the elapsed time since leaving Firm BWJ was sufficient to extinguish conflict of interest obligations when reviewing BWJ subdivision plans submitted to City C
City Engineer J reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ; public perceived a conflict of interest
Assessment of whether J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent enough (less than one year) to trigger recusal obligations when reviewing BWJ's subdivision plans
City Engineer J Revolving Door Recusal Assessment
City Engineer J, as a revolving-door engineer who transitioned from private firm BWJ to the municipal City Engineer role, was required to assess whether his prior employment as a principal at BWJ obligated him to recuse from reviewing and approving BWJ's subdivision plan submissions to City C.
City Engineer J's prior role as principal at Firm BWJ created a direct conflict of interest when BWJ submitted subdivision plans to City C for J's review and approval, triggering recusal obligation assessment requirements under professional ethics codes.
Apparent failure to conduct or act on such assessment, as J approved BWJ's plans without recusal, resulting in property owner complaints of ethical compromise and the appearance of conflicted review.
City Engineer J Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Review
Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification Capability
City Engineer J, in the municipal plan review role, was required to possess the capability to verify that submitted subdivision stormwater designs complied with City C's post-development peak flow regulations before approving plans for bidding and construction.
City Engineer J administratively reviewed and approved the BWJ subdivision plans for conformance with city policy, but the approved design was found to violate stormwater regulations, raising questions about the adequacy of the regulatory compliance review.
Inadequate exercise demonstrated by approval of plans that were subsequently found to violate the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow requirement, resulting in post-construction flooding.
After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
City C's subdivision regulations require that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions.
City Engineer J Temporal Recency Conflict Assessment BWJ Transition
City Engineer J, formerly a principal at Firm BWJ, held authority to review and approve subdivision plans submitted by BWJ to City C; public concern about conflict of interest prompted ethical review; BER assessed temporal gap as a mitigating factor
Temporal Recency Conflict Assessment Constraint
City Engineer J's ethical authority to review and approve Firm BWJ's subdivision plans was constrained by the temporal proximity of J's transition from BWJ to City C — if the transition occurred less than one year before the subdivision work was under contract, heightened conflict of interest obligations would apply requiring recusal; the BER assumed the transition occurred at least one year prior, mitigating but not eliminating the conflict assessment obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 14-8; BER Case precedent on conflict of interest temporal assessment
From the date of City Engineer J's transition from Firm BWJ to City C through the period of subdivision plan review and approval
Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project
City Engineer J's administrative review and approval before subdivision construction
Given the facts, the Board interprets that Engineer J's transition from the private sector to the public sector was not recent and there does not appear to be a conflict between J's former work at BWJ and their current work for City C.
The Board determined that because Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ was not recent, the temporal gap was sufficient to mitigate any conflict of interest concern, and therefore no ethical violation arose from J's review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans for City C.
Beyond the Board's finding that City Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' and therefore did not create a conflict of interest, the Board's conclusion rests on an unstated temporal assumption that deserves explicit examination. The NSPE Code and referenced BER cases do not establish a bright-line temporal threshold after which a former private-sector employment relationship categorically ceases to create an appearance of conflict for a public-sector engineer reviewing that former employer's work. The Board's reasoning implicitly treats elapsed time as the dispositive factor, but other variables — including the depth of J's prior financial stake in Firm BWJ, whether J retained any ongoing professional or financial ties to BWJ after departure, the magnitude of the project under review, and whether J's prior work at BWJ directly informed the subdivision design methodology — are equally relevant to a complete conflict-of-interest assessment. A more rigorous analytical framework would require City Engineer J to have proactively disclosed his prior employment to City C decision-makers regardless of elapsed time, allowing those decision-makers — rather than J himself — to determine whether recusal was warranted. This disclosure obligation flows directly from Code Section II.4.a, which requires engineers to disclose all known or potential conflicts that could 'appear to' influence their judgment, a standard that is appearance-based and therefore not automatically extinguished by the passage of time alone.
The Board's conclusion that no conflict existed because the transition was 'not recent' does not address whether City Engineer J had an affirmative, proactive disclosure obligation independent of whether an actual conflict existed. Even in cases where a former employment relationship is sufficiently attenuated in time to eliminate a substantive conflict, the appearance of impropriety remains a distinct ethical concern under Code Section II.4.a. City Engineer J's failure to disclose his prior principal-level role at Firm BWJ — before reviewing and approving plans prepared by that same firm — denied City C's decision-makers the opportunity to make an informed judgment about whether independent review was warranted. This omission is ethically significant regardless of J's subjective impartiality, because the public's confidence in the integrity of municipal plan review depends not only on actual objectivity but on transparent process. The property owners' subsequent complaints about J's ethical compromise, while not dispositive of actual bias, illustrate precisely the reputational and institutional harm that proactive disclosure is designed to prevent. A complete ethical analysis would therefore find that J had a disclosure obligation under II.4.a even if recusal was ultimately unnecessary, and that his failure to disclose — whatever the elapsed time — represented a procedural ethical shortcoming distinct from the question of substantive conflict.
The Board's recommendation that Principal Engineer R re-review Firm IBM's analysis before acknowledging error reflects a reasonable professional standard of verification, but it does not fully account for the independent ethical obligations that arise when confirmed post-development flooding harm has already materialized and affected third-party property owners. The Board frames R's obligation primarily as one of internal verification and error acknowledgment to the client and City C. However, Code Section I.1 — which requires engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — creates an obligation that runs to affected third parties, not merely to clients and regulators. Where flooding damage to neighboring homes has already occurred and an independent engineering firm has confirmed substantial stormwater flow exceedances, Principal Engineer R's ethical obligation is not limited to verifying IBM's methodology before acknowledging error. R also bears a proactive obligation to ensure that affected property owners and City C are not left without timely, accurate information about the nature and scope of the design deficiency while the internal verification process proceeds. Delay in communication — even if justified by the need for methodological verification — can compound harm by preventing affected parties from taking protective or remedial action. The Board's recommendation, while sound as far as it goes, should be understood as establishing a floor rather than a ceiling for R's ethical obligations under these facts.
The Board's recommendation that Principal Engineer R acknowledge errors if Firm BWJ's analysis confirms a mistake does not address the ethically significant complication introduced by the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm. Firm IBM's analysis identified not only stormwater flow exceedances attributable to the subdivision design but also contributing factors including a property owner's undersized driveway culvert and extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding constructed by another property owner. Principal Engineer R bears an ethical obligation under Code Section III.1.a — which prohibits distorting or altering the facts — to ensure that any error acknowledgment or remediation communication accurately and completely represents the multi-causal character of the flooding, rather than allowing the design deficiency to be treated as the sole or primary cause when causation is genuinely shared. This obligation runs in both directions: R must not minimize or obscure a genuine design deficiency by over-attributing harm to third-party actions, but R equally must not accept sole causal responsibility for flooding that was materially exacerbated by post-construction modifications outside BWJ's design scope. A complete and honest accounting of causation — including the third-party contributing factors — is not a defensive maneuver but an affirmative ethical obligation to ensure that City C, Developer G, and affected property owners receive accurate information necessary for informed remediation decisions. Failure to communicate the multi-causal picture completely would itself constitute a distortion of facts prohibited by Code Section III.1.a.
Neither the Board's conclusions nor the explicit case record addresses whether Principal Engineer R had a proactive post-construction verification obligation that, if fulfilled, might have identified the stormwater design deficiency before flooding occurred. The Board's analysis is entirely reactive — focused on what R must do after harm has materialized and after IBM's independent analysis has confirmed non-compliance. However, Code Section I.1's paramount public welfare obligation, read in conjunction with the environmental stewardship principle and the regulatory compliance verification obligation, suggests that engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs bear a best-practice ethical obligation to conduct or recommend post-construction verification of stormwater performance before the first significant storm event, particularly where the design operates at or near regulatory thresholds. While the NSPE Code does not explicitly mandate post-construction monitoring, the spirit of the public welfare paramount principle — and the foreseeability of harm to neighboring properties from stormwater design failures — supports the conclusion that proactive verification represents the ethical standard of care for engineers in R's position. The absence of such verification in this case, while not the subject of the Board's explicit conclusions, represents an analytical gap that a complete ethical assessment of R's conduct should address.
Although flood damage and independent consultant Firm IBM's analysis show larger flows, Principal Engineer R and Principal Engineers R's firm should confirm whether an error exists – essentially, they should re-review Firm IBM's analysis. If Firm BWJ determines they made a mistake, Principal Engineer R is responsible to acknowledge errors.
The Board recommended that Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ independently verify whether an error exists by re-reviewing Firm IBM's analysis, and further concluded that if an error is confirmed, Principal Engineer R bears the professional obligation to acknowledge that error, consistent with NSPE Code provisions III.1.a (acknowledging errors) and III.8 (accepting personal responsibility for professional activities).
In response to Q101: City Engineer J had an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose his prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing and approving the subdivision plans, regardless of the elapsed time since his departure. NSPE Code Section II.4.a requires engineers to disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment. The prior employment relationship is precisely the kind of known potential conflict that must be disclosed so that the client — here, City C — can make an informed determination about whether to assign the review to J or to an independent reviewer. The Board's conclusion that no actual conflict existed because the transition was 'not recent' does not eliminate the disclosure obligation; it merely informs the ultimate finding on whether a conflict was material. Disclosure and conflict determination are sequential obligations: disclosure comes first, and the determination of materiality follows. By failing to disclose proactively, City Engineer J denied City C the opportunity to exercise its own judgment on the matter, which is itself an ethical deficiency independent of whether actual bias existed.
In response to Q104: The Board's conclusion that Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' rests on an unstated factual assumption about the elapsed time between his departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans. The Board does not articulate a specific temporal threshold, which leaves the conclusion analytically incomplete. Drawing on the revolving-door principles implicit in BER cases addressing public-sector transitions, a defensible threshold would distinguish between three zones: (1) less than one year — presumptive conflict requiring recusal or at minimum mandatory disclosure and supervisory override; (2) one to three years — rebuttable presumption of conflict requiring disclosure and case-by-case determination by the appointing authority; and (3) more than three years — disclosure still advisable but conflict presumption substantially diminished, consistent with the Board's apparent reasoning here. The absence of an explicit threshold in the Board's analysis creates interpretive uncertainty that could be exploited in future cases where the elapsed time is ambiguous. A principled ethics framework should articulate the temporal standard rather than leave it implicit, because the appearance of impropriety — which NSPE Code Section I.6 requires engineers to avoid — is itself a function of public perception, and the public cannot assess that appearance without knowing the elapsed time.
In response to Q102: The flooding harm to neighboring property owners creates an independent ethical obligation for Principal Engineer R that extends beyond merely notifying Developer G or City C. NSPE Code Section I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public paramount, and this obligation is not discharged simply by communicating with the immediate client. When a design deficiency has already caused material harm to identifiable third parties — here, neighboring property owners who suffered water damage to their homes — the engineer directing that design bears a proactive duty to ensure that affected parties are not left without information necessary to protect themselves from ongoing or future harm. This does not necessarily require Principal Engineer R to directly contact each property owner, but it does require that R ensure City C is fully and urgently informed of the potential design deficiency so that City C can fulfill its own public notification obligations. Waiting passively for a formal error determination before taking any communicative action is inconsistent with the public welfare paramount principle when harm has already materialized and the risk of continued harm is foreseeable.
In response to Q103: Principal Engineer R bears an affirmative ethical obligation to ensure that the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm is accurately and completely communicated to City C and affected parties. Firm IBM's independent analysis identified at least two contributing factors beyond the subdivision stormwater design: an undersized driveway culvert belonging to a property owner, and extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding constructed by a property owner that exacerbated runoff. Allowing the narrative to collapse into a single-cause attribution — treating the design deficiency as the sole cause — would constitute a distortion of the facts, which NSPE Code Section III.1.a explicitly prohibits. This obligation runs in both directions: Principal Engineer R must not overstate the design deficiency to deflect responsibility, but equally must not understate it by hiding behind third-party contributions. A complete and honest causal account serves the public interest, supports accurate remediation planning, and preserves the integrity of the engineering profession. The causation complexity does not diminish R's error acknowledgment obligation where a regulatory exceedance is confirmed; it contextualizes it.
In response to Q201: A genuine tension exists between the principle of Objectivity in City Engineer J's plan review and the risk of unconscious loyalty to his former employer Firm BWJ. While the Board found no demonstrable conflict given the elapsed time, the ethical literature on cognitive bias — and the NSPE Code's emphasis on avoiding even the appearance of conflict under Section II.4.a — recognizes that prior professional and financial relationships can create dispositional tendencies toward favorable judgment that operate below the threshold of conscious awareness. The ethical significance of this tension is not that J was necessarily biased, but that the structural conditions for unconscious bias were present and were not mitigated by any disclosed recusal consideration or supervisory override. Objectivity as an ethical principle requires not only the absence of actual bias but also the implementation of procedural safeguards that make objectivity verifiable to external observers. The absence of such safeguards here — no disclosure, no independent co-review, no supervisory sign-off — means that even if J's review was substantively objective, it was not procedurally defensible as such.
In response to Q202: Principal Engineer R's obligation to independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before accepting its findings does not conflict with the error acknowledgment obligation — rather, the two obligations operate in sequence and at different levels of specificity. The error acknowledgment obligation under NSPE Code Section III.1.a does not require R to immediately concede every finding in IBM's report as correct; it requires R not to distort or suppress facts once errors are known. The appropriate ethical sequence is: (1) R should promptly and seriously engage with IBM's findings rather than dismissing them; (2) R should commission or conduct an independent verification of IBM's modeling assumptions and inputs; (3) if verification confirms the exceedance, R must acknowledge the error without qualification; and (4) if verification reveals methodological differences that explain the discrepancy, R must communicate those differences transparently rather than using them as a pretext to avoid accountability. The Board's recommendation that Firm BWJ re-review IBM's analysis is consistent with this sequence, but the Board should have been more explicit that the verification process cannot be used as an indefinite delay tactic when harm has already materialized and affected parties are waiting for remediation.
In response to Q203: The case illustrates a fundamental limitation of regulatory compliance as a proxy for the public welfare obligation. City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard is a minimum regulatory floor, not a guarantee of adequate protection for neighboring properties under all foreseeable post-development conditions. If Firm BWJ's design technically satisfied the regulatory standard on paper but the post-development flows substantially exceeded pre-development conditions as confirmed by IBM's independent analysis, then either the design did not actually satisfy the standard — making this a straightforward regulatory non-compliance — or the standard itself was insufficient to prevent the observed harm. In either case, NSPE Code Section I.1's mandate to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public imposes an obligation on Principal Engineer R that is not fully discharged by demonstrating regulatory compliance. Engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs bear an obligation to consider whether the regulatory standard is adequate for the specific site conditions, and to flag to the client and City C when site-specific factors — such as proximity to vulnerable downstream properties — suggest that the minimum standard may be insufficient to protect public welfare.
In response to Q301 and Q302 (deontological and consequentialist perspectives on City Engineer J): From a deontological standpoint, City Engineer J failed to fulfill his duty of impartiality not because bias was demonstrated, but because the duty of impartiality includes a procedural dimension — the obligation to structure one's review process so that impartiality is verifiable, not merely asserted. By reviewing and approving Firm BWJ's plans without disclosing his prior employment relationship, J denied City C the information necessary to independently assess whether his review was structurally sound. This is a deontological failure independent of outcomes. From a consequentialist standpoint, the downstream flooding harm — confirmed by IBM's independent analysis as substantially exceeding the regulatory standard — provides at least circumstantial evidence that the plan review process was insufficiently rigorous. Whether a more independent review would have caught the design deficiency cannot be determined with certainty, but the consequentialist calculus is unfavorable: the approval process produced a net negative outcome for neighboring property owners, and the structural conditions that might have prevented that outcome — independent review, disclosed conflict, supervisory oversight — were absent. Both ethical frameworks thus converge on the conclusion that J's approval process was ethically deficient, even if the Board's finding of no actual conflict is accepted.
In response to Q303 and Q304 (virtue ethics and deontological perspectives on Principal Engineer R): From a virtue ethics perspective, the virtue of candor — a core professional virtue for engineers — does not permit Principal Engineer R to treat the verification process as a shield against accountability. A candid engineer, upon learning that post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeded the regulatory standard and that neighboring properties had flooded, would immediately acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, initiate verification, and communicate transparently with City C and Developer G about the ongoing investigation — rather than waiting in silence for verification to conclude. Candor requires an honest orientation toward the facts as they are emerging, not merely a formal acknowledgment after all doubt is resolved. From a deontological perspective, Principal Engineer R bears an unconditional professional duty under NSPE Code Section III.8 to accept personal responsibility for the directed stormwater design. The fact that third-party property owner actions — paved areas and a large outbuilding — contributed to the flooding does not extinguish this duty; it contextualizes it. Where a regulatory non-compliance in the design is a necessary condition of the harm — meaning the harm would not have occurred in its observed form without the design deficiency — R's duty to acknowledge that deficiency is unconditional, even if the quantum of harm attributable to R's design versus third-party actions remains to be determined.
In response to Q402 and Q403 (counterfactual questions on temporal threshold and proactive verification): If the temporal gap between City Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans had been very recent — less than one year — the Board's conclusion that no conflict of interest existed would almost certainly have changed. A very recent departure creates financial entanglements, ongoing professional loyalties, and reputational interdependencies that are not yet attenuated by time, and the appearance of impropriety under such circumstances would be severe enough to require recusal as a matter of professional ethics independent of any demonstrated bias. Regarding proactive post-construction verification: if Principal Engineer R had commissioned an independent post-construction stormwater verification study immediately after subdivision completion, the regulatory non-compliance would likely have been identified before any flooding event occurred, enabling remediation before harm materialized. While such proactive verification is not explicitly required by City C's subdivision regulations, it represents a best-practice ethical obligation for engineers directing stormwater-sensitive designs in proximity to vulnerable downstream properties. NSPE Code Section I.1's public welfare paramount principle, read in conjunction with Section III.2.d's sustainable development obligation, supports the conclusion that engineers should not treat regulatory approval as the terminal point of their public welfare obligation — particularly where post-construction conditions may differ from design assumptions.
In response to Q404: The counterfactual question of whether Firm BWJ's stormwater design alone — absent the third-party property owner modifications — would have caused the observed flooding is analytically critical to calibrating Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligation. If the design deficiency was a necessary but insufficient cause of the flooding — meaning the flooding would not have occurred at the observed severity without both the design deficiency and the third-party modifications — then R's obligation is to acknowledge the design deficiency clearly while simultaneously ensuring that the multi-causal account is accurately communicated. R's acknowledgment obligation is not diminished by shared causation, but the scope of remediation responsibility may be appropriately apportioned. Conversely, if the design deficiency alone would have been sufficient to cause flooding even without the third-party modifications, then the third-party contributions are aggravating factors that do not reduce R's core responsibility. In either scenario, Principal Engineer R cannot ethically use the third-party contributions as a basis for avoiding or delaying acknowledgment of the confirmed regulatory exceedance. The ethical obligation is to acknowledge what is known — the regulatory non-compliance — while being transparent about what remains uncertain — the precise causal contribution of each factor to the observed harm.
The tension between Objectivity in plan review and Conflict of Interest Recusal — as applied to City Engineer J — was resolved by the Board through a temporal mitigation framework rather than a categorical recusal rule. The Board implicitly held that the passage of sufficient time between J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans attenuated the conflict to a level where objectivity could be presumed intact. However, this resolution is analytically incomplete because it conflates the absence of demonstrable bias with the satisfaction of the appearance-of-conflict standard embedded in Code provision II.4.a. Even where actual bias is absent, the principle of Conflict of Interest Recusal retains independent force as a transparency and public-trust obligation. The more principled resolution would have been to hold that J could proceed with review only if he had proactively disclosed his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers, thereby allowing the institutional client — not J alone — to determine whether recusal was warranted. By omitting this disclosure requirement from its analysis, the Board subordinated the appearance-of-conflict dimension of the Objectivity principle to a purely temporal heuristic, leaving an unstated and potentially under-protective threshold governing revolving-door scenarios in public engineering roles.
The tension between Error Acknowledgment Obligation and Professional Accountability — as applied to Principal Engineer R — was resolved by the Board through a sequenced verification framework: R must first independently confirm whether Firm IBM's analysis reveals a genuine error before accepting findings that carry significant legal and reputational consequences. This resolution correctly recognizes that the duty to acknowledge errors under Code provision III.1.a presupposes that an error has in fact been made, and that professional accountability includes the responsibility to verify before conceding. However, the Board's sequencing framework must not be permitted to become a mechanism for indefinite deferral. The principle of Public Welfare Paramount, codified in Code provision I.1, operates as a temporal constraint on the verification process: where flooding harm to neighboring residents is already confirmed and ongoing, the verification phase must be conducted with urgency, and any interim risk-mitigation measures — such as notifying City C of the potential deficiency — should not await the conclusion of internal review. The synthesis of these principles yields a two-track obligation: R must pursue independent verification diligently and in good faith, while simultaneously discharging a proactive risk disclosure duty to the client and affected parties commensurate with the severity of the realized harm.
The tension between Regulatory Compliance Verification and Public Welfare Paramount — the deepest structural tension in this case — was not explicitly resolved by the Board but is illuminated by the flooding outcome. Firm BWJ's design may have satisfied the City C 25-year recurrence interval standard on paper at the time of approval, yet post-development flows were found by Firm IBM to substantially exceed pre-development conditions, resulting in actual harm to neighboring residents. This divergence reveals that regulatory compliance, while necessary, is not ethically sufficient as a proxy for the public welfare obligation. The principle of Public Welfare Paramount, as the paramount canon of the NSPE Code, requires engineers to exercise independent professional judgment about whether a design that technically clears a regulatory threshold will in practice protect the public from foreseeable harm — including harm arising from reasonably anticipated post-development land use changes in the surrounding area. The case further teaches that where causation is genuinely shared between a design deficiency and third-party contributing factors, the engineer's ethical obligation is not diminished but is instead bifurcated: Principal Engineer R bears a duty to acknowledge the design's contribution to the harm while also ensuring that the multi-causal nature of the flooding is accurately communicated to City C and affected parties, so that remediation efforts are proportionate and correctly targeted. Allowing a design deficiency to be treated as the sole cause when third-party actions materially contributed would itself constitute a distortion of facts prohibited by Code provision III.1.a.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance — City Engineer J Approval of Former Employer
City Engineer J's prior role as a principal at Firm BWJ created a conflict of interest when he served as the approving authority for Firm BWJ's subdivision design submissions to City C.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
City Engineer J was constrained by ethics code provisions from exercising official approval authority over engineering work submitted by Firm BWJ, his former employer, without first disclosing the prior employment relationship and either recusing himself or obtaining a formal determination that the relationship did not compromise his impartiality.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; BER Case 14-8
During the period of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's City C subdivision plans
Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard - City Engineer J
Professional ethics norms and BER precedent
Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard as applied to City Engineer J's prior employment with Firm BWJ
Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard
members of the public perceive the City Engineer J's former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest
The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised
Board of Ethical Review analyzing City Engineer J's ethical status
Applied to evaluate whether City Engineer J's prior employment with Firm BWJ ethically disqualifies J from reviewing and approving design documents submitted by BWJ to City C; the Board concludes that if the transition occurred at least one year prior to the subdivision contract, no disqualifying conflict exists
Conflict of Interest Disqualification Standard - City Engineer J Review
NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on conflict of interest; applicable municipal ethics rules
Professional and Municipal Standards for Conflict of Interest Recusal in Engineering Review
City Engineer J, City C administration, property owners raising ethical complaints
Governs whether City Engineer J, as a former principal of Firm BWJ, was ethically permitted to conduct the administrative review and approval of BWJ's subdivision plans without recusal or disclosure
Conflict of Interest Recusal Invoked By City Engineer J
Administrative review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans for Developer G
City Engineer J, who previously worked for Firm BWJ, reviewed and approved subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ to City C, raising public concern about whether J's prior employment relationship compromised the impartiality of that review
The BER applies a temporal threshold analysis: if J's transition from BWJ to City C occurred more than one year before the subdivision work was under contract, the conflict of interest concern is diminished; if the transition was recent, recusal or consent obligations would arise. The BER assumes the former.
The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ.
BER resolved the tension by applying a one-year temporal heuristic drawn from BER Case 14-8, concluding that a sufficiently distant prior employment relationship does not ethically compromise the reviewing engineer, provided no active project overlap existed
Conflict of Interest State — City Engineer J
From the time City Engineer J assumed the City Engineer role and reviewed Firm BWJ's plans through the present
City Engineer J's professional role as approving authority over former employer Firm BWJ
City Engineer J, a former principal of Firm BWJ, exercised official approval authority over subdivision plans submitted by Firm BWJ
Should City Engineer J recuse himself from reviewing and approving Firm BWJ's subdivision plans — or at minimum proactively disclose his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers — given that his transition from BWJ to City C may create an appearance of conflict of interest under NSPE Code Section II.4.a?
City Engineer J reviewing and approving subdivision plans submitted by former employer Firm BWJ, given J's prior principal-level employment at BWJ and the temporal proximity of the transition
Review and approve BWJ's subdivision plans without disclosing prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers
Proactively disclose prior principal-level employment at BWJ to City C decision-makers before undertaking any review, and allow City C to determine whether to assign review to an independent municipal engineer
Recuse entirely from reviewing and approving any plans submitted by Firm BWJ and delegate approval authority to an independent reviewer
Should Principal Engineer R independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before formally acknowledging the stormwater design error, and what proactive disclosure and remediation obligations does R bear toward Developer G, City C, and affected neighboring property owners once the error is confirmed — particularly given that IBM identified third-party contributing factors alongside the design deficiency?
Principal Engineer R's obligations upon learning that Firm IBM's independent analysis — corroborated by actual post-construction flooding — indicates the BWJ stormwater design produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's regulatory requirements
Independently verify IBM's analysis against original BWJ stormwater calculations, and upon confirmation of error formally acknowledge the design deficiency, proactively disclose findings to Developer G and City C, communicate the full multi-causal picture including third-party contributing factors, convene the BWJ risk management team, and design and implement a corrective stormwater system
Defer all acknowledgment and communication until internal verification is fully complete, without providing any interim disclosure to City C or affected property owners during the verification period
Acknowledge the stormwater design error immediately upon receiving IBM's report without conducting independent verification, accepting IBM's findings as dispositive without checking them against original design calculations
Should City Engineer J review and approve subdivision plans prepared by Firm BWJ — his former employer — without disclosing his prior employment relationship to City C decision-makers, given that his departure was not recent?
City Engineer J: Objectivity and Conflict of Interest Disclosure in Plan Review of Former Employer's Work
Proactively disclose prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing subdivision plans, and allow City C to determine whether to assign review to J or an independent reviewer
Review and approve Firm BWJ's subdivision plans in the ordinary course without disclosing prior employment relationship, relying on elapsed time since departure as sufficient attenuation of any conflict
Should Principal Engineer R immediately acknowledge the stormwater design error and proactively communicate the multi-causal nature of the flooding harm to City C and affected parties, or should R first independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before making any acknowledgment — and in either case, how must R handle the third-party contributing factors identified by IBM?
Principal Engineer R: Error Acknowledgment, Independent Verification, and Multi-Causal Disclosure After Stormwater Design Non-Compliance Is Confirmed
Independently re-review Firm IBM's analysis to verify whether a design error exists, while simultaneously notifying City C of the potential deficiency and ensuring affected property owners receive timely information — then formally acknowledge the confirmed error and communicate the full multi-causal account of the flooding to all affected parties
Defer all communication and acknowledgment until internal verification of IBM's analysis is fully complete, without interim notification to City C or affected property owners
Immediately and unconditionally accept IBM's findings as correct, acknowledge sole design responsibility for the flooding, and initiate remediation without independently verifying IBM's methodology or communicating the third-party contributing factors to City C and affected parties
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
{'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project': 'New subdivision in City C, State Q'}
Private developer who retained Firm BWJ to develop subdivision plans for a new subdivision in City C, bearing authority over project scope and subject to compliance with local stormwater regulations.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision
Developer G retaining Firm BWJ / Engineer R developing subdivision plans after Engineer J joining City C as City Engineer
Developer Retains Firm BWJ → IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance
Engineer A's employer transition (Case 14-8) during active project legal review (Case 14-8)
Engineer J Prior Employment Conflict Assessment
From the time Engineer J assumed the City Engineer role through the period of reviewing BWJ's subdivision design documents
City Engineer J's authority to review and approve design documents submitted by former employer Firm BWJ
BER determination that sufficient temporal gap (assumed at least one year) mitigates the conflict, conditionally permitting Engineer J to proceed
whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ
Public perception of conflict of interest arising from Engineer J's former employment with Firm BWJ, combined with Engineer J's exercise of approval authority over BWJ's submitted plans
From BER's assumption that at least one year elapsed between Engineer J's departure from BWJ and the subdivision contract, through the conclusion of the conflict assessment
If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day.
Engineer J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ assessed against elapsed time since departure
BER finding that no ethical issue exists given the assumed sufficient temporal gap
However, if Engineer J's transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise.
The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract.
BER's application of the one-year temporal threshold to assess whether Engineer J's prior employment creates an active ethical compromise
Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ before subdivision project contract with Developer G
Engineer J's employment at Firm BWJ before Engineer J's role as City Engineer at City C
Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Obligation
From the point Engineer R became aware of IBM's analysis and the flooding complaints through completion of acknowledgment and initiation of corrective action
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem
Principal Engineer R's professional obligation upon receiving IBM's credible independent analysis contradicting the compliance of the subdivision stormwater design
Engineer R verifying IBM's analysis, acknowledging the runoff problem, engaging BWJ's risk management team, and initiating corrective design process
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work
Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
Receipt of IBM's independent modeling results showing regulatory exceedance, combined with documented real-world flooding of adjacent properties
Engineer R Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint — IBM Independent Analysis
IBM's independent hydrological modeling found storm runoff flows substantially larger than pre-development conditions for the 25-year storm event, directly contradicting the compliance basis of Engineer R's original subdivision stormwater design.
Post-Approval Error Correction Constraint
Upon receipt of IBM's independent modeling confirming that the subdivision stormwater design produces post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard, Principal Engineer R was ethically constrained to acknowledge the calculation errors, revise the affected work product, and take affirmative corrective action, and was prohibited from continuing to defend the original design as compliant.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; NSPE Code Section III.8; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5; BER Case 93-8
Upon and after receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming regulatory non-compliance
After the subdivision is completed, properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding.
Engineer R Post-Project Harm Materialized
From completion of subdivision construction through the present, as flooding damage has been documented and independent analysis confirms regulatory exceedance
Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded
Principal Engineer R's subdivision stormwater design and resulting flooding of adjacent properties
Not yet terminated — pending acknowledgment, risk management engagement, and corrective design implementation
an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement
Adjacent property flooding following subdivision construction, combined with IBM's independent modeling confirming post-development runoff exceeds pre-development conditions
Engineer R Public Safety Paramount Constraint — Stormwater Design Deficiency
Post-construction flooding of neighboring properties confirmed that the subdivision stormwater design failed to meet the City C regulatory standard, creating ongoing public safety risk to neighboring residents and property owners.
Principal Engineer R was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to ensure that the subdivision stormwater design did not create unmitigated flooding risks to neighboring properties, and upon confirmation of regulatory non-compliance through IBM's independent analysis, was prohibited from allowing the deficient design to remain uncorrected when neighboring residents faced ongoing flooding harm.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; NSPE Code Canon 1
Throughout the design, approval, and post-construction phases of the City C subdivision project
Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed.
Property owners complain that the flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Constraint — City C 25-Year Stormwater Standard
IBM's independent analysis confirmed that the subdivision design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, establishing that the regulatory constraint was violated.
Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were bound by City C's subdivision regulation requiring that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak stormwater flows must be equal to or less than pre-development conditions, constraining the subdivision stormwater design to achieve this quantitative performance standard as a non-negotiable regulatory requirement.
City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation — 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard
During design development and throughout the life of the subdivision
Engineer R Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed
From completion of IBM's independent analysis through the present
an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions)
Regulatory Standard Exceedance Confirmed State
IBM's independent modeling confirming that Engineer R's subdivision design produces post-development runoff exceeding City C's pre-development peak flow requirements
Not yet terminated — pending Engineer R's verification, acknowledgment, and corrective action
both actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
IBM's independent modeling analysis showing stormwater runoff flows larger after construction than before, in conflict with City C's regulatory requirement for peak flows not exceeding pre-development conditions
Engineer R's stormwater plan development before City Engineer J's administrative review and approval
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint BWJ Subdivision Stormwater City C
City C's stormwater regulation established a quantitative peak flow performance standard; IBM's independent modeling and actual flooding experience confirmed the subdivision design failed to meet this standard, triggering remediation obligations
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were bound by City C's stormwater regulation requiring that post-development peak runoff not exceed pre-development peak runoff at the 25-year recurrence interval — a binding regulatory constraint that the subdivision design was required to satisfy and that IBM's independent analysis confirmed was violated by the as-designed and as-constructed stormwater system.
City C Subdivision Stormwater Regulation — 25-Year Recurrence Interval Standard; NSPE Code of Ethics
From design commencement through construction completion and post-construction performance verification
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Stormwater Design
Subdivision stormwater management design; watershed and drainage impacts on adjacent properties
The BWJ subdivision stormwater design implicated environmental stewardship obligations by affecting the drainage patterns and runoff volumes in the surrounding watershed, with the alleged design failure resulting in increased post-development runoff that caused flooding of adjacent properties and disrupted pre-existing hydrological conditions
Environmental stewardship in stormwater engineering requires designing systems that maintain pre-development hydrological conditions, protecting both the natural environment and adjacent property owners from adverse runoff impacts
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions).
Environmental stewardship obligations require that designs actually achieve hydrological neutrality, not merely claim compliance; actual flooding outcomes indicate the stewardship obligation was not met
Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Invoked By Principal Engineer R
BWJ subdivision stormwater design; IBM independent analysis findings; flooding experienced by adjacent property owners
Professional Reputation and Honor Obligation
Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design allegedly produced post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements, is obligated to review IBM's independent analysis, verify its findings against R's own work, acknowledge the runoff problem if confirmed, and engage BWJ's risk management team to develop a corrective design
The affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors is triggered by the combination of actual flooding outcomes and IBM's independent modeling, both of which indicate non-compliance with City C's peak flow requirements; R cannot ethically await formal legal proceedings before acknowledging the deficiency
Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM.
Professional accountability and public welfare obligations override any interest in avoiding acknowledgment of error; BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of inaccurate data or erroneous conclusions triggers an affirmative disclosure duty
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint — Engineer R Defense of Stormwater Design
IBM's independent hydrological modeling directly contradicted the compliance basis of Engineer R's original stormwater calculations, constraining Engineer R from continuing to assert design compliance as a grounded professional opinion.
Principal Engineer R was constrained from publicly or professionally defending the subdivision stormwater design as compliant with City C's 25-year recurrence interval standard after IBM's independent modeling provided credible technical evidence to the contrary, prohibiting continued assertion of compliance as a professional opinion when the factual basis for that opinion had been materially undermined by independent analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; BER Case 16-7
{'entity_type': 'Private engineering firm', 'former_employee': 'City Engineer J', 'principal_engineer': 'Engineer R'}
Firm BWJ is the private engineering firm that employed City Engineer J before J's transition to City C, and that prepared the subdivision stormwater design under Principal Engineer R. BWJ is the entity whose submittals are reviewed by its former employee J, and whose design is alleged to be deficient. BWJ's risk management team is identified as a party that should be engaged by Engineer R.
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
{'type': 'former_employer_of', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
{'type': 'submits_to', 'target': 'City C Municipal Engineering Department'}
City Engineer J' former employment with the BWJ
Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem
Firm BWJ Corrective Stormwater Remediation Design
Corrective Stormwater Remediation Design Capability
Firm BWJ needed technical capability to design and specify a workable corrective stormwater management system that would bring the subdivision into compliance with City C's post-development peak flow requirements
Firm BWJ was obligated to design and implement a corrective stormwater management system following confirmation of the original design's non-compliance
Obligation to identify, design, and construct a workable corrective stormwater management system serving the citizens of City C
Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C.
Firm BWJ Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation City C Subdivision
The subdivision stormwater design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions, resulting in actual flooding and property damage to adjacent owners. Both IBM's independent modeling and empirical flooding evidence confirmed the non-compliance.
Regulatory Stormwater Compliance Remediation Obligation
Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to design and implement a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions, thereby eliminating the flooding harm experienced by adjacent property owners.
Following acknowledgment of the error and completion of fault allocation; ongoing until corrective design is constructed and verified
Firm BWJ Stormwater Regulatory Compliance
Firm BWJ, as the engineering firm responsible for subdivision stormwater design, was required to possess organizational capability to verify regulatory compliance of stormwater designs before submission and sealing, but the firm's design was found to violate City C's post-development peak flow requirements.
Firm BWJ prepared subdivision plans under Principal Engineer R's direction that were found to produce post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, violating City C subdivision regulations.
Absence demonstrated by the independent finding of substantial post-development runoff exceedance and the driveway culvert capacity deficiency identified by Firm IBM.
Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R, to develop plans for the subdivision.
{'firm_type': 'Engineering and surveying firm', 'location': 'City C / State Q context', 'former_principal': 'City Engineer J'}
Engineering and surveying firm retained by Developer G to develop subdivision plans, operating under the direction of Principal Engineer R, whose stormwater design was found to be non-compliant with City C's post-development peak flow requirements.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer G'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reviewer', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
Firm BWJ Workable Corrective Stormwater Design Implementation City C
Actual flooding of adjacent properties and IBM's independent modeling confirmed regulatory non-compliance; acknowledgment of error alone was insufficient — a workable corrective design was required to restore compliance and protect public welfare
Workable Corrective Design Implementation Constraint
Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were constrained to proceed beyond mere error acknowledgment to the identification, design, and construction of a workable corrective stormwater management system that brings the City C subdivision into compliance with the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow standard and protects neighboring properties from continued flooding harm.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections III.1.a and III.8; City C Stormwater Regulation; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5
Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C
From error acknowledgment through completion of corrective design construction and regulatory compliance verification
{'entity_type': 'Independent engineering firm', 'specialty': 'Stormwater hydrologic modeling', 'engagement_basis': 'Third-party review following flooding complaints'}
Firm IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision design following complaints about post-construction flooding, finding that post-development runoff flows exceed pre-development conditions in conflict with City C requirements. IBM's analysis is used to establish the evidentiary basis for Engineer R's obligation to acknowledge design errors.
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'City C or affected parties'}
{'type': 'reviews_work_of', 'target': 'Principal Engineer R'}
IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue
Firm IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling
Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis Capability
Firm IBM demonstrated expert-level capability to conduct independent hydrological modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design, producing findings that identified substantial post-development runoff exceedances and downstream infrastructure deficiencies.
City C engaged Firm IBM as a third-party reviewer following flooding complaints; IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling that confirmed regulatory non-compliance in the BWJ design.
Firm IBM performed independent modeling and analysis finding storm runoff flows substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after subdivision completion, and identified the driveway culvert capacity deficiency.
City C engaged a third-party engineering firm (IBM) to review the subdivision design.
One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event.
Multi-Causal Flood Attribution Capability
Firm IBM demonstrated advanced capability to identify and apportion multiple contributing causes of post-construction flooding, distinguishing between design deficiencies in the BWJ stormwater design, downstream infrastructure capacity deficiencies, and post-construction modifications by property owners that exacerbated flooding.
Firm IBM's independent review identified multiple contributing causes of flooding, enabling a nuanced causal attribution that distinguished design deficiencies from third-party contributions to the flooding problem.
IBM's analysis identified three distinct contributing causes: BWJ's stormwater design producing excess runoff, a driveway culvert with insufficient capacity, and property owner construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding that exacerbated flooding potential.
Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential.
Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Independent Review
Firm IBM needed technical capability to conduct independent hydrological modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design, performing pre-development and post-development runoff calculations sufficient to verify or refute compliance with City C's regulatory peak flow requirements
Firm IBM was engaged by City C to conduct objective technical review of the subdivision design following flooding complaints
Independent stormwater modeling and analysis confirming that post-development runoff exceeded pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements
actual flood damage and IBM's modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement
Firm IBM Objective Complete Reporting Stormwater Independent Review
Firm IBM was engaged by City C as an independent third-party reviewer to evaluate the BWJ subdivision stormwater design following flooding complaints. IBM's independent modeling showed post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's requirements.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Firm IBM was obligated to conduct its independent stormwater analysis objectively and completely, reporting all findings accurately — including findings adverse to Firm BWJ's design — and including all relevant technical information in its report to City C, so that City C could make informed decisions about the subdivision design's regulatory compliance.
During and upon completion of the independent stormwater analysis
Firm IBM conducted independent stormwater modeling and analysis of the BWJ subdivision design following complaints about post-construction flooding
Firm IBM Third-Party Engineering Reviewer
{'firm_type': 'Third-party engineering firm', 'engaged_by': 'City C', 'analysis_type': 'Independent hydrological modeling and stormwater analysis'}
Independent engineering firm engaged by City C to conduct objective technical review of the subdivision design following flooding complaints, performing independent hydrological modeling and analysis that found post-development runoff flows substantially larger than pre-development conditions for the 25-year storm event.
{'type': 'independent_of', 'target': 'Developer G'}
{'type': 'independent_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
{'type': 'reviewer_of', 'target': 'Firm BWJ subdivision design'}
After performing independent modeling and analysis, Firm IBM found storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
One of the complaining property owner's driveway culverts was determined to have insufficient capacity for a 25-year storm event
Firm IBM Watershed Protection Design Review
Firm IBM demonstrated technical capability to evaluate stormwater management systems for adequacy in protecting downstream properties and infrastructure, including assessing whether subdivision designs adequately managed runoff to prevent flooding of adjacent properties.
Firm IBM conducted independent review of the BWJ subdivision stormwater design following flooding complaints, demonstrating watershed protection design competence through its identification of design deficiencies and downstream infrastructure inadequacies.
IBM's independent analysis identified that the BWJ subdivision design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, demonstrating competence to evaluate stormwater management system adequacy.
Firm IBM independent review and analysis after subdivision construction completion
Flooding Property Owners Affected Property Owner Stakeholder
{'harm_type': 'Flooding and water damage to homes', 'complaint_type': 'Technical (stormwater design deficiency) and ethical (conflict of interest)', 'contributing_factor': "One property owner's own paved areas and outbuilding construction exacerbated flooding"}
Property owners in the vicinity of the subdivision who experienced flooding and water damage to their homes following subdivision completion, who filed complaints with City C regarding both the technical adequacy of the stormwater design and the ethical conflict of interest of City Engineer J. One property owner's driveway culvert was found to have insufficient capacity; another property owner's own construction was found to have exacerbated flooding.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'City Engineer J approval decision'}
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'Firm BWJ subdivision design'}
{'type': 'complainant_to', 'target': 'City C'}
properties in the vicinity of the subdivision experience flooding
Construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by one of the property owners was also determined to have exacerbated flooding potential
IBM Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint — Third-Party Contributing Factors
IBM's review identified multiple contributing factors to flooding, including both the subdivision design deficiency and third-party property owner actions, requiring complete multi-causal disclosure in the review report.
Causation Complexity Disclosure Constraint
Firm IBM, in conducting and reporting its independent engineering review, was constrained to disclose all identified contributing factors to the flooding harm — including the insufficient culvert capacity of a property owner's driveway and the construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding by another property owner — prohibiting a single-cause attribution report that omitted these third-party contributions to flooding potential.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2; Written Report Completeness Constraint; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint
During preparation and submission of IBM's independent review report to City C
IBM Confirms Design Non-Compliance → R Acknowledges Error and Remediates
IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis
Firm IBM Third-Party Independent Engineering Review of City C Subdivision Stormwater Design
City C, property owners, ethical review of Firm BWJ's design adequacy
Third-party independent engineering review commissioned by City C following flooding complaints, using hydrological modeling to assess whether BWJ's design met the 25-year recurrence interval standard. Findings revealed substantially larger post-development runoff flows and insufficient culvert capacity.
IBM's confirmation of design compliance failure after Engineer R's original stormwater plan development
Independent Engineering Review - IBM Analysis
Independent stormwater runoff analysis conducted by Firm IBM reviewing BWJ's subdivision design
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8
The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM
Board of Ethical Review in establishing the factual predicate for Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligations
IBM's independent modeling analysis provides the technical basis for asserting that Principal Engineer R's stormwater calculations contain errors resulting in post-development flows exceeding pre-development conditions; triggers Principal Engineer R's obligation to verify, acknowledge, and correct the design deficiency
J Reviews and Approves BWJ Plans → Neighboring Properties Flood
Loyalty to Former Employer and Client Invoked By City Engineer J via BER 14-8
City Engineer J's review of BWJ subdivision plans; analogy to Engineer A in BER Case 14-8
BER Case 14-8 established that an engineer who transitions from a private firm to a public agency retains ongoing loyalty duties to the former employer and client, requiring consent before participating in proceedings adverse to those parties
Loyalty to a former employer does not permanently bar a public engineer from reviewing that employer's submissions, but it does require consent when the transition is recent and the matter was active during the employment relationship
BER resolved the tension by finding that temporal distance (more than one year) sufficiently attenuates the loyalty obligation to permit review without consent, absent active project overlap
The BER case discussion noted Engineer A's ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client
NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.1.a
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligation III.1.a
Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors
Board of Ethical Review in directing Principal Engineer R's obligations
Directly invoked as the normative basis requiring Principal Engineer R to acknowledge errors in the stormwater runoff calculations and take corrective action
NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.8
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Professional Obligation III.8
professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
Directly invoked as the normative basis affirming that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, supporting the obligation of Principal Engineer R to address the stormwater design deficiency
Developer G retains Firm BWJ (an engineering and surveying firm), under the direction of Principal Engineer R
Principal Engineer R, Firm BWJ, City Engineer J
Primary normative authority governing Principal Engineer R's obligations in subdivision design, Firm BWJ's professional conduct, and City Engineer J's conflict of interest obligations as a former BWJ principal now approving BWJ's work
Non-Deception Constraint — City Engineer J Approval Without Recusal Disclosure
City Engineer J's approval of his former employer's plans without disclosure of the prior employment relationship created an appearance of independent review that was materially misleading to City C and the public.
City Engineer J was constrained by ethics code non-deception provisions from conducting and presenting the administrative approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans without disclosing his prior employment relationship as a principal of Firm BWJ, as such non-disclosure created a misleading impression that the approval was conducted by a disinterested reviewing authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Non-Deception (Constraint)
At the time of administrative review and approval of Firm BWJ's subdivision plans
Objectivity Invoked By City Engineer J Plan Review
Municipal plan review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans
City Engineer J's review and approval of BWJ subdivision plans must be conducted with objectivity and impartiality, free from bias arising from J's prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ, to ensure that the municipal plan review process serves its public protective function
Objectivity requires not only actual impartiality but also the absence of reasonable public perception of bias; the public's expressed concern about J's prior employment relationship with BWJ implicates the objectivity principle even if J's review was substantively unbiased
BER resolved the objectivity concern by applying a temporal threshold: sufficient temporal distance from prior employment is deemed to restore the capacity for objective review
Post-Subdivision Flooding Harm to Neighboring Properties
From completion of subdivision construction through ongoing flooding complaints and third-party review
Completed subdivision design by Firm BWJ under Principal Engineer R
Not yet terminated — harm and investigation are ongoing in the facts presented
Properties in the vicinity of the completed subdivision experienced flooding causing water damage to homes
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'specialty': 'Subdivision stormwater design', 'applicable_obligations': ['NSPE III.1.a', 'NSPE III.8']}
Principal Engineer R of Firm BWJ prepared the subdivision stormwater design that is alleged to have errors resulting in post-development runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C requirements. Independent analysis by Firm IBM and actual flooding evidence indicate design failure. Engineer R bears obligations under NSPE III.1.a and III.8 to acknowledge the errors, verify IBM's analysis, and coordinate remediation.
{'type': 'design_impacts', 'target': 'Affected Property Owner Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'design_subject_to_review_by', 'target': 'Third-Party Engineering Reviewer (Firm IBM)'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Firm BWJ'}
{'type': 'submitted_to', 'target': 'Municipal Plan Review Engineer'}
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1.a and acknowledge the runoff problem
the second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R's actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM
Principal Engineer R Causation Complexity Disclosure IBM Analysis Stormwater
IBM's independent review identified multiple contributing factors to flooding beyond the subdivision design alone; accurate multi-cause reporting was required to enable equitable fault allocation and effective corrective design
In reporting on the stormwater design deficiency and resulting flooding, both Engineer R and Firm IBM were constrained to disclose all identified contributing factors — including the subdivision design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — prohibiting presentation of a single-cause narrative when the technical evidence supported multiple contributing causes.
NSPE Code of Ethics; IBM Independent Stormwater Modeling and Analysis; Qualitative Risk Assessment — Flooding Causation Analysis
IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert
During and following IBM's independent analysis and throughout the fault allocation and remediation process
There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved
Principal Engineer R Design Error Acknowledgment
Design Deficiency Causal Attribution Capability
Principal Engineer R, as the Design Error Acknowledging Engineer, was required to possess the capability to identify, analyze, and accurately attribute the root causes of the stormwater design deficiencies found by Firm IBM, and to communicate this causal attribution honestly to City C and affected parties.
Principal Engineer R is identified as a Design Error Acknowledging Engineer confronted with Firm IBM's findings that the BWJ stormwater design produced post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C regulations.
The case presents Principal Engineer R in the role of Design Error Acknowledging Engineer, indicating that R is confronted with findings of design errors and must assess and acknowledge the causal attribution of those errors.
Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
Principal Engineer R needed capability to recognize that actual flooding evidence combined with IBM's independent analysis created an affirmative obligation under NSPE Code III.1.a and III.8 to acknowledge the stormwater runoff error
Principal Engineer R was confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing post-development runoff exceeded pre-development conditions, confirmed by actual flooding of adjacent properties
Recognition that post-construction flooding and IBM's modeling confirming runoff exceedance triggered mandatory error acknowledgment obligations
Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM's modeling show the subdivision created an issue.
Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors.
Principal Engineer R Error Acknowledgment Stormwater Runoff Exceedance
Firm IBM's independent analysis showed post-development stormwater runoff exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C's regulatory requirements, and adjacent property owners experienced actual flooding following subdivision construction. Principal Engineer R directed the preparation of the original stormwater design.
Principal Engineer R was obligated to acknowledge the stormwater runoff problem identified by Firm IBM's independent analysis and confirmed by actual post-construction flooding, recognizing that both empirical evidence and independent modeling demonstrated that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development conditions.
Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis and the actual flooding evidence
Principal Engineer R Fault Allocation Multi-Party Responsibility
Principal Engineer R needed capability to analyze and apportion professional responsibility among multiple parties — including BWJ, City Engineer J, Developer G, and affected property owners — following confirmation of the stormwater design deficiency
Following error acknowledgment, a determination and allocation of fault among all parties involved was required
Participation in fault determination and allocation process involving all parties following acknowledgment of the runoff problem
There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved.
Principal Engineer R Independent Verification IBM Analysis
Principal Engineer R needed capability to independently review and verify Firm IBM's stormwater analysis against R's own original design calculations before formally acknowledging the error
Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently verify IBM's analysis before acknowledging the runoff problem
Required review of IBM's hydrological modeling methodology and conclusions against original BWJ stormwater design calculations
After reviewing and verifying IBM's analysis and checking that analysis against R's own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem
Principal Engineer R Post-Approval Error Correction Stormwater Design
IBM's independent hydrological modeling confirmed that BWJ's subdivision stormwater design produced post-development runoff exceeding City C's regulatory standard; actual flooding of adjacent properties corroborated the modeling findings; Engineer R faced obligation to acknowledge and correct the error
Principal Engineer R was constrained from continuing to defend or passively accept the original stormwater design calculations once IBM's independent modeling and actual flooding experience provided credible evidence that the design produced post-development runoff exceeding City C's pre-development peak flow standard — requiring R to independently verify IBM's analysis, acknowledge the error, and take affirmative corrective action.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5
From the date Principal Engineer R received IBM's independent analysis through completion of corrective design and implementation
Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification Before Acknowledgment IBM
IBM's independent modeling contradicted Engineer R's original stormwater calculations; R was required to independently verify IBM's findings before acknowledging error, ensuring that acknowledgment was grounded in R's own professional assessment rather than passive acceptance of third-party conclusions
Before formally acknowledging the stormwater error, Principal Engineer R was constrained to independently review and verify IBM's analysis against R's own original calculations — prohibiting both premature acknowledgment without independent verification and continued defense of original calculations in the face of contradicting technical evidence from IBM's modeling and actual flooding experience.
From receipt of IBM's independent analysis through completion of R's independent verification
Principal Engineer R Post-Error Independent Verification IBM Analysis
Firm IBM produced independent stormwater modeling showing runoff exceedance. The BER directed that R should review and verify IBM's analysis against R's own work before acknowledging the problem, establishing a verification step prior to formal acknowledgment.
Post-Error Independent Verification Before Acknowledgment Obligation
Principal Engineer R was obligated to independently review and verify Firm IBM's analysis against R's own original stormwater design calculations before formally acknowledging the error, ensuring that any acknowledgment was grounded in R's own professional judgment and not merely uncritical acceptance of IBM's findings.
Before formally acknowledging the runoff problem, upon receipt of IBM's analysis
Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ
Following confirmation of the stormwater design error, the BER directed that R should bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem, conduct fault allocation, and ultimately develop and construct a corrective design serving the citizens of City C.
Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening Obligation
Principal Engineer R was obligated, following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, to convene the BWJ risk management team to collectively assess the error, determine fault allocation among all parties involved, and develop a workable corrective design that brings the subdivision into compliance with City C's regulatory requirements and eliminates the flooding harm to adjacent property owners.
Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
Following acknowledgment of the runoff problem and verification of IBM's analysis
Principal Engineer R Post-Error Risk Management Team Convening BWJ Stormwater
IBM's analysis identified multiple contributing factors to flooding including the subdivision design deficiency, an insufficient culvert, and potential third-party property owner actions; structured fault allocation was required before remediation responsibilities could be assigned
Multi-Party Fault Allocation Procedural Constraint
Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were constrained to convene the BWJ risk management team and engage in a structured determination and allocation of fault among all contributing parties — including the design deficiency, the insufficient culvert, and third-party property owner actions — before implementing corrective measures, prohibiting unilateral assumption or deflection of fault.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 16-7; BER Case 95-5; BER Case 93-8
Following acknowledgment of the stormwater error through completion of fault allocation and corrective design implementation
Principal Engineer R Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Principal Engineer R needed capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — including Cases 16-7, 95-5, and 93-8 — to analyze the professional obligations triggered by discovery of the stormwater design error
BER Cases 16-7, 95-5, and 93-8 provided precedential guidance for Principal Engineer R's obligations following discovery of the stormwater design error
Application of BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 precedent establishing affirmative obligation to acknowledge errors and advise clients when inaccurate data is discovered
BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors
the Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward
Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client
Principal Engineer R needed capability to promptly advise Developer G and City C about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the consequent risk of regulatory non-compliance and property damage following discovery of the design error
Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly disclose the stormwater calculation error and its consequences to Developer G and City C
Obligation to step forward and advise client about inaccurate data and new conclusions once error was discovered, consistent with BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5
once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions.
Principal Engineer R Proactive Risk Disclosure Client Post-Error Discovery
BER Case 16-7 established that upon discovering inaccurate data underlying a prior report, an engineer has an affirmative obligation to advise the client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions. Principal Engineer R faced an analogous situation when IBM's analysis and actual flooding confirmed errors in the stormwater design.
Principal Engineer R was obligated to promptly advise the client (Developer G and/or City C) about the inaccurate stormwater calculations and the corrected conclusions once R confirmed the error, consistent with the affirmative obligation established in BER Case 16-7 to step forward and advise clients when data upon which a report was based is found to be inaccurate.
Upon confirmation that the stormwater design contained errors producing runoff exceedance
Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Acceptance
Responsible Charge Active Engagement Capability
Principal Engineer R needed capability to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including acknowledging that direction of the work creates professional responsibility for its adequacy
Principal Engineer R directed the development of subdivision plans including stormwater management design that was subsequently found to be non-compliant
Recognition that directing preparation of the subdivision stormwater design creates professional responsibility under NSPE Code III.8
Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities
A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Directed Stormwater Design
Principal Engineer R directed the development of subdivision plans for Developer G, including the stormwater management design. The BER invoked NSPE III.8 to affirm that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, and cited the basic tenet that engineers must accept responsibility for professional services they render.
Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work Obligation
Principal Engineer R was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the design's failure to comply with City C's regulatory requirements, recognizing that R's role as directing principal engineer does not permit deflection of responsibility to subordinate preparers.
Upon and following discovery of the design error; throughout the remediation process
Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction
Principal Engineer R Professional Accountability Stormwater Directed Work
Engineer R directed preparation of the subdivision stormwater design; following identification of design errors causing flooding, R's professional accountability for the directed work was invoked as a constraint on deflecting responsibility
Principal Engineer R was constrained by professional obligation III.8 from deflecting or disclaiming accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction — establishing that professional responsibility for directed work product attaches to the directing engineer regardless of whether subordinates performed the calculations.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.8; BER Case 93-8
From project completion through resolution of the stormwater compliance deficiency
A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders
as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind
Principal Engineer R Professional Seal Competence Verification
Professional Seal Affixation Competence Verification Capability
Principal Engineer R was required to verify, before sealing the subdivision stormwater design documents, that the design genuinely met City C's regulatory requirements for post-development peak flow control, and to refrain from sealing documents that did not meet those requirements.
Principal Engineer R sealed subdivision stormwater design documents that were subsequently found to violate City C's post-development peak flow regulations, raising questions about the adequacy of pre-seal verification of regulatory compliance.
Inadequate exercise demonstrated by sealing of plans that were subsequently found to violate the 25-year recurrence interval peak flow requirement, indicating that the pre-seal competence verification was insufficient.
Principal Engineer R Regulatory Compliance Verification Stormwater Design
The subdivision stormwater design was submitted to City C and approved without adequate verification that post-development runoff would not exceed pre-development conditions. IBM's subsequent independent analysis revealed the design failed to meet this regulatory standard.
Regulatory Compliance Verification Obligation
Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development conditions before submitting the plans to City C for approval.
Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's regulatory requirement
Before submitting subdivision plans to City C for administrative review and approval
Principal Engineer R Risk Management Team Convening
Risk Management Team Convening and Coordination Capability
Principal Engineer R needed capability to recognize that the confirmed stormwater design error required convening the BWJ risk management team to collectively address fault allocation, corrective design, and remediation strategy
Following acknowledgment of the stormwater runoff error, Principal Engineer R was obligated to convene the BWJ risk management team to address the problem collectively
Obligation to bring BWJ risk management team together following acknowledgment of the runoff flow problem
bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem.
Principal Engineer R Stormwater Regulatory Compliance
Principal Engineer R possessed — or was obligated to possess — the technical capability to verify that the subdivision stormwater design met City C's regulatory requirement that post-development 25-year recurrence interval peak flows not exceed pre-development conditions, but the independent review found this requirement was not met.
Principal Engineer R directed development of subdivision stormwater plans for Developer G that were subsequently found to produce post-development runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions in violation of City C subdivision regulations.
Failure demonstrated by Firm IBM's independent finding that post-development runoff flows were substantially larger than pre-development for the 25-year, two-hour storm event, indicating the capability was either absent or inadequately exercised.
Principal Engineer R Stormwater Regulatory Compliance Verification
Principal Engineer R needed technical capability to verify that the subdivision stormwater management design complied with City C's post-development peak flow requirements before sealing and submitting the design documents
Principal Engineer R directed preparation of stormwater design that was subsequently found to exceed City C's regulatory peak flow requirements
Failure to adequately verify that post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development conditions as required by City C regulations, resulting in non-compliant design
in conflict with the City's requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions
the subdivision design failed to comply with City C's regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff
Principal Engineer R Stormwater Risk Assessment
Principal Engineer R was required to possess technical capability to assess stormwater runoff risks associated with the subdivision design, including quantifying post-development peak flows for the 25-year recurrence interval storm event and verifying compliance with City C's regulatory thresholds.
Principal Engineer R directed stormwater management design for the subdivision that was found to produce substantially higher post-development runoff than pre-development conditions, indicating inadequate stormwater risk assessment during design.
Inadequate exercise demonstrated by the independent finding that post-development runoff substantially exceeded pre-development conditions, indicating insufficient stormwater risk assessment during design.
Principal Engineer R Subdivision Design Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied as Principal Engineer)', 'employer': 'Firm BWJ', 'specialty': 'Subdivision engineering and surveying', 'role_in_firm': 'Principal Engineer'}
Principal Engineer at Firm BWJ who directed the development of subdivision plans for Developer G, including stormwater management design that was subsequently found to produce substantially larger post-development runoff flows than permitted under City C's 25-year peak flow regulations.
{'type': 'former_colleague', 'target': 'City Engineer J'}
Principal Engineer R Watershed Protection Design BWJ Subdivision Stormwater
The BWJ subdivision stormwater design allegedly failed to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions, resulting in flooding and property damage to adjacent property owners. City C's regulatory requirements explicitly required post-development runoff not to exceed pre-development conditions.
Principal Engineer R and Firm BWJ were obligated to ensure that the subdivision stormwater management design adequately protected the surrounding drainage environment by ensuring post-development runoff did not exceed pre-development conditions, consistent with City C's regulatory requirements and the broader duty to protect public welfare from stormwater-related flooding.
During design development and prior to plan submission to City C for approval
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Principal Engineer R Post-Error Discovery
IBM's independent stormwater analysis findings; flooding of adjacent property owners; City C regulatory non-compliance
Upon being confronted with IBM's independent analysis showing stormwater runoff exceedance and the actual flooding experienced by adjacent property owners, Principal Engineer R has an obligation to proactively disclose the identified design deficiency to relevant parties — including the client, the City, and potentially affected property owners — without waiting for formal legal proceedings to compel disclosure
Proactive disclosure is required because the flooding risk has already materialized and affected third parties; delay in disclosure while awaiting legal resolution would compound harm to affected property owners
BER Cases 16-7 and 95-5 establish that discovery of error triggers an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise the client; the obligation extends to relevant parties when public welfare is implicated
Professional Accountability Invoked By Principal Engineer R
BWJ subdivision stormwater design errors; post-construction flooding of adjacent properties
Principal Engineer R bears professional accountability for the stormwater design prepared under R's direction, including accountability for the flooding consequences experienced by adjacent property owners, and must take responsibility rather than deflecting or rationalizing the design deficiency
Professional accountability requires R to accept responsibility for the professional services rendered, engage in corrective action, and participate in the allocation of fault among all parties involved
BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders.
BER Case 93-8 establishes that accepting responsibility for professional services is a basic tenet of ethical conduct that cannot be subordinated to self-interest or client economic concerns
Property Owners Lodge Complaints → City Engages IBM for Review
Public Safety Risk from Stormwater Design Deficiency
From completion of subdivision through resolution of stormwater design deficiency
Neighboring properties and residents in vicinity of City C subdivision
Not yet terminated — design deficiency and flooding risk remain unresolved
flooding damage caused water damage to their homes
storm runoff flows to be substantially larger for the 25-year, two-hour storm event after the subdivision was completed
Post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeding regulatory limits caused flooding and water damage to neighboring homes
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By BWJ Subdivision Design
Subdivision stormwater management design; flooding of adjacent property owners; City C regulatory compliance
The stormwater design's alleged failure to prevent post-development runoff from exceeding pre-development conditions resulted in flooding and property damage to adjacent homeowners, implicating the paramount obligation to protect public welfare in engineering design decisions
Public welfare paramount requires that the engineering design actually protect third-party property owners from flooding, not merely satisfy formal submission requirements; real-world flooding outcomes are evidence that the public welfare obligation was not met
Public welfare obligations require corrective design and construction regardless of cost or inconvenience to Developer G or Firm BWJ
Qualitative Risk Assessment - Flooding Causation Analysis
Assessment of Contributing Factors to Post-Subdivision Flooding
Firm IBM, City C, ethical analysis of proportionate responsibility
IBM's review included assessment of multiple contributing factors to flooding, including the subdivision design deficiencies, the insufficient culvert capacity, and the exacerbating construction of paved areas and a large outbuilding by a property owner — providing a structured multi-factor causation analysis
Was it ethical for City Engineer J to review and approve plans prepared by Firm BWJ, given that City Engineer J formerly worked for Firm BWJ?
Did City Engineer J have an affirmative obligation to proactively disclose his prior employment relationship with Firm BWJ to City C decision-makers before reviewing and approving the subdivision plans, even if the elapsed time since his departure was substantial?
To what extent does the flooding harm to neighboring property owners create an independent ethical obligation for Principal Engineer R to proactively notify affected third parties — not merely the client or City C — of the potential design deficiency, even before a formal error determination is made?
Given that third-party property owner construction — including paved areas and a large outbuilding — contributed to the flooding, does Principal Engineer R bear any ethical responsibility to ensure that the multi-causal nature of the harm is accurately and completely communicated to City C and affected parties, rather than allowing the design deficiency to be treated as the sole cause?
Does the Board's conclusion that Engineer J's transition was 'not recent' rely on an unstated factual assumption about the elapsed time, and if so, what temporal threshold should govern when a former private-sector employment relationship no longer creates an appearance of conflict for a public-sector engineer reviewing that former employer's work?
What are Principal Engineer R's ethical responsibilities under the facts?
Does the principle of Objectivity in City Engineer J's plan review conflict with the principle of Loyalty to Former Employer, in that J's prior professional and financial ties to Firm BWJ may have created — consciously or not — a disposition toward approving rather than rigorously scrutinizing the subdivision plans, even absent any demonstrable bias?
How should Principal Engineer R balance the Error Acknowledgment Obligation — which calls for prompt and honest admission of mistakes — against the principle of Professional Accountability, which may require R to first independently verify Firm IBM's analysis before accepting findings that could expose Firm BWJ to significant legal and professional liability?
Does the principle of Public Welfare Paramount conflict with the principle of Regulatory Compliance Verification in this case, in that strict adherence to the City C 25-year recurrence interval standard may have been technically satisfied on paper while the actual design failed to protect neighboring residents from foreseeable flooding harm — suggesting that regulatory compliance alone is an insufficient proxy for the public welfare obligation?
Does the principle of Conflict of Interest Recusal — which would counsel City Engineer J to step aside from reviewing Firm BWJ's plans — conflict with the principle of Objectivity in plan review, in the sense that recusal itself could be seen as an implicit acknowledgment of bias, while proceeding with review while disclosing the prior relationship might better serve transparency and the public interest if no actual bias exists?
From a deontological perspective, did City Engineer J fulfill his duty of impartiality by reviewing and approving plans submitted by his former employer Firm BWJ without disclosing his prior employment relationship to affected stakeholders, regardless of whether the elapsed time since his departure was substantial?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the downstream harm of flooding to neighboring properties — confirmed by Firm IBM's independent analysis — demonstrate that City Engineer J's approval of Firm BWJ's stormwater plans produced net negative outcomes that a more rigorous or recused review process might have prevented, thereby undermining the justification for his approval?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Principal Engineer R demonstrate professional integrity and intellectual honesty by waiting to confirm Firm IBM's findings before acknowledging any error, or does the virtue of candor require a more proactive and immediate response upon learning that post-development stormwater flows substantially exceeded the regulatory standard?
From a deontological perspective, does Principal Engineer R bear an unconditional professional duty to acknowledge the stormwater design error and notify affected parties — including Developer G, City C, and neighboring property owners — independent of whether third-party actions by property owners contributed to the flooding, given that the regulatory non-compliance in the design is a necessary condition of the harm?
If City Engineer J had formally disclosed his prior employment at Firm BWJ to City C and recused himself from reviewing the subdivision plans — delegating approval authority to an independent municipal reviewer — would the stormwater design deficiency have been identified before construction, and would the flooding harm to neighboring properties have been avoided?
If the temporal gap between City Engineer J's departure from Firm BWJ and his approval of the subdivision plans had been very recent — say, less than one year — would the Board's conclusion that no conflict of interest existed have changed, and what threshold of elapsed time should ethically trigger mandatory recusal in revolving-door scenarios?
If Principal Engineer R had proactively commissioned an independent post-construction stormwater verification study immediately after subdivision completion — before any flooding occurred — would the regulatory non-compliance have been discovered and remediated in time to prevent property damage, and would such proactive verification constitute a best-practice ethical obligation for engineers directing stormwater-sensitive subdivision designs?
If the property owners who constructed extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding had not made those modifications — thereby eliminating the third-party contributing factors identified by Firm IBM — would Firm BWJ's stormwater design alone have been sufficient to cause the observed flooding, and how should Principal Engineer R's error acknowledgment obligation be calibrated when causation is genuinely shared between design deficiency and third-party actions?
R Designs Stormwater Plans → Neighboring Properties Flood
Regulatory Compliance State — City C Subdivision Stormwater
From project inception through completion and post-construction review
Firm BWJ's subdivision design obligations under City C subdivision regulations
Not yet terminated — compliance status is actively contested following IBM findings
City C subdivision regulations establishing quantitative stormwater performance standard applicable to the subdivision design
Regulatory Compliance Verification Invoked By BWJ Stormwater Design
BWJ subdivision stormwater design; City C peak flow regulatory requirements; IBM independent hydrological analysis
Developer G project schedule and cost constraints
Firm BWJ and Principal Engineer R were obligated to verify through adequate hydrological modeling that the subdivision stormwater design complied with City C's requirement that post-development peak runoff flows not exceed pre-development conditions before certifying and submitting the plans for approval
The combination of actual flooding and IBM's independent modeling indicating post-development runoff exceedance suggests the original design verification was inadequate; the regulatory compliance obligation required more rigorous hydrological analysis before certification
Regulatory Compliance Verification in Stormwater Design
Regulatory compliance obligations are non-negotiable and cannot be subordinated to client economic interests; actual flooding outcomes confirm that the design failed to meet the applicable standard
Stormwater Management Regulation - City C Peak Flow Requirement
City C Stormwater Runoff Regulation requiring post-development peak flows not to exceed pre-development conditions
Board of Ethical Review and independent firm IBM in assessing design compliance; Principal Engineer R in evaluating corrective obligations
Establishes the regulatory standard against which the subdivision design is evaluated; IBM's independent analysis and actual flooding experience indicate the design failed to comply with this requirement
From the point harm materialized through the fault determination and allocation process
Contributing Third-Party Action Complicating Causation State
Causal complexity in attributing flooding harm between Engineer R's design deficiency and potential third-party contributions
Completion of fault determination and allocation process among all involved parties
Recognition that multiple parties may bear responsibility for the flooding outcomes, requiring allocation of fault before corrective obligations can be fully assigned
Subdivision Stormwater Regulatory Non-Compliance
From completion of subdivision construction through independent IBM review findings and ongoing
Firm BWJ's subdivision stormwater design for City C subdivision
Not yet terminated — regulatory non-compliance remains unresolved in the facts presented
Firm IBM's independent modeling confirmed post-development 25-year storm runoff flows substantially exceed pre-development conditions, in violation of City C subdivision regulations
Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint — Engineer R Post-IBM Analysis
Neighboring properties were experiencing ongoing flooding harm, making prompt acknowledgment and corrective action time-sensitive to prevent continued damage.
Upon receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming that the subdivision stormwater design produced runoff substantially exceeding pre-development conditions, Principal Engineer R was constrained to promptly acknowledge the errors and disclose corrective obligations to City C and affected parties, prohibiting deferral of error acknowledgment to later proceedings or more convenient moments while neighboring properties continued to experience flooding harm.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.a; Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint precedent; BER Case 16-7
Immediately upon receipt of IBM's independent analysis confirming regulatory non-compliance
Third-Party Property Owner Actions Complicating Flood Causation
From IBM's independent review findings identifying third-party contributions through resolution of causal apportionment
Causal analysis of flooding harm attributed to subdivision design
Not yet terminated — causal apportionment remains unresolved in the facts presented
IBM's independent review identified that a property owner's undersized driveway culvert and construction of extensive paved areas and a large outbuilding also contributed to flooding potential
Written Report Completeness Constraint — IBM Independent Review Report
IBM's independent review identified multiple technical findings relevant to the flooding causation analysis, all of which were required to be included in the written report to City C.
Firm IBM was constrained to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in its written independent review report submitted to City C, including the identified stormwater regulatory non-compliance, the contributing third-party factors, and the causal complexity of the flooding attribution, prohibiting selective omission of any identified contributing factor.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Written Report Completeness Constraint precedent
At the time of preparation and submission of IBM's independent review report
discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7) before legal settlement (Case 16-7)
discovery of inaccurate data (Case 16-7) during legal settlement negotiations (Case 16-7)
neighboring property flooding before property owners' complaints
pre-development conditions (no flooding) before post-development flooding
property owners' complaints before City C engaging Firm IBM for independent review
subdivision construction before neighboring property flooding