Possible public controversy if route impacts existing structures or land
Potential conflicts between optimal engineering solutions and private property rights
Competent execution of contracted engineering work
Honest and objective professional service
Fulfill a professional engineering services agreement by identifying and recommending a viable road route between two towns
Commitment to provide professional engineering services to a public client
Obligation to serve the public interest through infrastructure improvement
Route planning and transportation engineering
Initial contract phase, before route analysis began
JKL Engineering accepts a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns, committing the firm and Engineer A to public interest obligations inherent in licensed professional engineering work.
Accept State Road Contract → Historic Farmhouse Identified
JKL Engineering accepts a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns, initiating the engineering analysis that leads to the discovery of the historic farmhouse conflict
Without accepting the contract, no route analysis would have been performed and the farmhouse conflict would not have been identified in this context
Contract acceptance creating obligation to perform route analysis
Engineer A's diligent field and records investigation
Existence of the historic farmhouse along viable corridors
Contract acceptance + route analysis obligation + farmhouse location within corridor
Creative alternatives such as farmhouse relocation may be costly or logistically complex
Failing to recommend condemnation at all could deprive the public of a significant infrastructure benefit
If the state ultimately chooses condemnation despite alternatives, Engineer A's recommendation may be seen as having enabled that outcome
Obligation to advise the client on feasible and reasonable solutions
Obligation to balance interests of the state, the traveling public, and the farmhouse owners
Obligation to be honest and objective in professional statements and activities
Obligation to hold public safety, health, and welfare paramount
Obligation to seek amicable resolution before recommending adversarial state action
Greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian principle, with limits)
Honest, objective, and complete professional advice
Minimization of harm to all affected parties
Professional engineers' duty to surface and explore creative alternatives in controversial situations
Respect for individual property rights and historic preservation
Provide the state with an honest, objective, and comprehensive professional recommendation that balances public infrastructure needs against the rights and interests of the historic farmhouse owners, prioritizing amicable resolution over adversarial condemnation where possible
Ability to evaluate and present alternative engineering and logistical solutions (e.g., structure relocation)
Ethical reasoning and application of professional codes of conduct
Knowledge of eminent domain and property acquisition processes
Professional communication and advisory skills for government clients
Resolution point, after site visit and eminent domain recognition, as the culminating professional recommendation
Engineer A advises the state by presenting the full range of feasible and reasonable options, including condemnation, creative alternatives such as physically relocating the farmhouse, and other negotiated resolutions, in an attempt to reach an outcome that serves the public interest while respecting all stakeholder interests.
Town Engineer and Consulting Engineer, BER Case 79-2
Methane gas migration into adjacent properties (as alleged by Engineer C)
Public controversy and reputational risk for the engineers involved
Obligation to exercise professional judgment in balancing societal needs against environmental risk
Obligation to provide a technically feasible solution to a pressing public need
Obligation to serve the client (town council) within the bounds of applicable state environmental law
Balance between society's needs and unavoidable environmental degradation
Compliance with applicable environmental regulations as a minimum standard
Professional judgment as the final arbiter of complex engineering tradeoffs
Provide the town with a workable landfill design that met state environmental laws and addressed the immediate waste disposal crisis, even if it involved higher environmental risk than originally planned
Landfill design and environmental engineering
Risk evaluation for environmental impacts
Circa 1979, during the BER Case 79-2 proceedings referenced in the discussion
Engineers A and B in BER Case 79-2 agreed to redesign the landfill to higher contours at the town council's request, despite environmental concerns raised publicly by Engineer C, choosing to balance societal need for waste disposal capacity against the risk of environmental harm.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 05-4 (Waterfront Development Public Hearing Disclosure)
More recently, in BER case 05-4, Engineer A was retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
In deciding that it was not unethical for Engineer A to not volunteer the potential for increased traffic and air and noise pollution
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the scope of Engineer A's disclosure obligations in public proceedings
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers are not ethically required to volunteer information in public hearings that they have not been specifically questioned about, provided the omitted information is not, in their professional judgment, 'relevant and pertinent' to the matter under consideration
BER Case 05-4 (2005) before Present case (Engineer A / JKL Engineering road route)
More recently, in BER case 05-4... Turning to the facts in the present case
Present case (Engineer A / JKL Engineering road route)
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 79-2 (Sanitary Landfill Environmental Trade-offs)
One longstanding example is BER Case 79-2
professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about Case No. 79-2 environmental dangers for particular projects
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's obligations regarding infrastructure routing and stakeholder balancing
Cited as precedent establishing that professional judgment is the final arbiter of environmental trade-offs in public infrastructure decisions, and that engineers acting within regulatory frameworks and exercising good-faith professional judgment act ethically even when environmental controversy exists
BER Case 79-2 (1979) before BER Case 05-4 (2005)
One longstanding example is BER Case 79-2... More recently, in BER case 05-4
BER Case 79-2 (1979) before Present case (Engineer A / JKL Engineering road route)
One longstanding example is BER Case 79-2... Turning to the facts in the present case
CausalLink_Advise State on Balanced Solut
CausalLink_Agree to Redesign Landfill (BE
CausalLink_Recognize Eminent Domain Optio
CausalLink_Visit Farmhouse Owner Directly
CausalLink_Withhold Unprompted Traffic Di
City X Planning Board Regulatory Authority
{'type': 'Municipal planning regulatory body', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-4'}
The public regulatory body before which Engineer A presented the waterfront development design, asked questions of Engineer A, and received testimony from other witnesses about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
{'type': 'regulatory', 'target': 'Engineer A Waterfront Development Hearing Case'}
Engineer A made a presentation and responded to questions by members of the City Planning Board
Complete Route Alternative Presentation Constraint Engineer A JKL State
Engineer A has identified at least two route options — the shortest route requiring farmhouse condemnation and a longer alternative — and must present both completely and objectively to the state client.
Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from presenting only the shortest route or only the longer alternative to the state client — the route recommendation must present each workable route alternative completely and objectively, including all advantages (travel time savings), disadvantages (historic property condemnation, owner opposition), costs, risks, and long-term performance characteristics, so that the state client can make a fully informed route selection decision.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint; Route Alternative Complete Comparative Analysis Obligation
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip.
At the time of route recommendation submission to the state client
However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route.
Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on all feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public, including physically moving the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.
The Board concluded that Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to advise the state client on all feasible and reasonable solutions aimed at an amicable resolution, balancing public interests with the historic property owner's interests. The Board specifically identified physical relocation of the historic farmhouse as one such creative alternative, reflecting the Creative Alternative Generation Obligation and Multi-Interest Balancing principles. This is a recommendation-type conclusion directing Engineer A's professional conduct rather than finding a violation or compliance determination.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must advise the state on all feasible and reasonable solutions, Engineer A's obligation to present alternatives arose at the moment the farmhouse impact was first identified during route analysis — not merely after the owner visit confirmed refusal to sell. The owner's personal opposition, while ethically significant, is not the triggering condition for Engineer A's disclosure duty. The historic and cultural significance of a 100-year-old family farmhouse on required land constitutes a material third-party impact that must be surfaced to the state client as soon as it is identified, regardless of whether voluntary sale remains possible. Delaying disclosure until after the owner visit would allow the state to advance planning on the shortest route without full situational awareness, potentially foreclosing less harmful alternatives before they are even considered. Engineer A's completeness obligation therefore runs from first identification of the conflict, and the owner visit — while commendable as a proactive step — represents an additional layer of due diligence rather than the threshold event that activates the disclosure duty.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must advise on all feasible and reasonable solutions implicitly requires Engineer A to conduct and communicate a proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property — even if the state client has not explicitly requested that comparative judgment. A 30-minute reduction on a two-hour trip represents a 25 percent efficiency gain, which is a meaningful but not extraordinary public benefit. Against this must be weighed the permanent destruction of an irreplaceable cultural and familial resource whose owners have explicitly refused any voluntary transfer. Engineer A, as the professional with direct knowledge of both the route geometry and the property's significance, is uniquely positioned to frame this proportionality question for the state. Omitting that framing — by presenting the shortest route and the eminent domain option without contextualizing the severity of the harm — would constitute selective disclosure that distorts the state's decision-making calculus. The faithful agent obligation does not require Engineer A to make the proportionality judgment on behalf of the state, but it does require Engineer A to ensure the state possesses the full informational basis to make that judgment itself. Presenting route options without the proportionality context would be technically complete but substantively misleading.
The Board's recommendation that Engineer A explore physically relocating the historic farmhouse as a creative third-path solution reflects a deeper ethical obligation that the Board did not fully articulate: Engineer A's duty of completeness is not satisfied by presenting only the binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative. Before advising the state on either of those options, Engineer A is ethically required to investigate and present hybrid alternatives — including partial route re-alignments that reduce travel time while avoiding the farmhouse footprint, and structural solutions such as physical relocation of the farmhouse to another site owned by the family or a willing third party. Failure to explore these intermediate options before presenting the binary choice constitutes a breach of the completeness obligation because it artificially constrains the state's decision space and increases the probability that eminent domain will be perceived as the only path to the shorter route. The creative alternative generation obligation is not merely aspirational; it is a professional duty grounded in the engineer's unique technical capacity to identify solutions that non-engineer decision-makers cannot independently generate. If Engineer A exhausts these alternatives and finds none technically or financially feasible, that finding itself must be disclosed to the state with supporting analysis, at which point the ethical calculus shifts toward a more explicit duty to advise against the shortest route if its only viable implementation path causes disproportionate harm.
The Board's conclusion does not address the tension between Engineer A's obligation to disclose the eminent domain option and the risk that doing so may foreclose the state's motivation to pursue less harmful alternatives. Disclosing that condemnation is legally available is ethically required — withholding a legally available tool from the client would itself constitute a breach of the faithful agent obligation. However, the manner and sequencing of that disclosure carries independent ethical weight. If Engineer A presents the eminent domain option before exhausting and presenting creative alternatives, the disclosure may function as an implicit endorsement of condemnation as the path of least resistance, effectively steering the state toward the most harmful outcome. Ethical practice requires Engineer A to sequence the advisory in a way that presents creative and hybrid alternatives first, frames the proportionality of harm explicitly, and positions eminent domain as a last resort rather than a co-equal option. This sequencing obligation is not merely strategic; it reflects the engineer's duty under the honest and objective professional statements provision to ensure that the full context — including the severity and irreversibility of condemnation — accompanies any disclosure of the condemnation authority. Disclosing the legal option without the contextual harm assessment would be technically honest but substantively incomplete.
The Board's conclusion implicitly resolves — but does not explicitly address — the question of whether Engineer A bears any ethical responsibility toward the farmhouse owner as a third-party stakeholder. The NSPE Code's paramount public welfare obligation extends to all members of the public, including property owners whose land is affected by infrastructure projects. While Engineer A's primary contractual duty runs to the state client, the farmhouse owner is a member of the public whose safety, health, and welfare Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount. This does not mean Engineer A must advocate for the owner against the client, but it does mean Engineer A cannot treat the owner's interests as ethically invisible. Engineer A's proactive visit to the farmhouse owner — while not contractually required — was ethically appropriate as an expression of the public welfare obligation, because it ensured the owner had an opportunity to be heard before the route decision crystallized. However, Engineer A's responsibility to the owner does not extend to proactively advising the owner of the eminent domain risk in a way that would compromise Engineer A's faithful agent duty to the state. The ethical boundary is that Engineer A must ensure the owner's interests and opposition are fully and accurately represented to the state, but Engineer A is not the owner's advocate and cannot act as one without breaching the faithful agent obligation.
In response to Q101: Engineer A's obligation to disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state arose upon first identifying the impact on the historic property during route selection analysis — not merely after visiting the owner and confirming refusal to sell. The visit to the farmhouse owner was itself an expression of Engineer A's proactive professional judgment, but the underlying disclosure obligation to the state client attached the moment Engineer A determined that the shortest route would require addressing a significant third-party property impact. Waiting until after the owner's refusal to inform the state would have improperly sequenced the engineer's advisory role, potentially allowing the state to proceed with planning assumptions that were already known to be problematic. The completeness obligation under Code Section II.4 — acting as a faithful agent — requires timely, not merely eventual, disclosure of material constraints affecting the client's decision-making.
In response to Q102: Engineer A does bear an independent ethical obligation to assess and communicate the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property, even absent an explicit client request for that comparative judgment. Code Section II.4 requires Engineer A to act as a faithful agent, which encompasses providing the client with the professional analysis necessary for informed decision-making — not merely the technical data the client has specifically requested. A faithful agent who withholds a material proportionality judgment — knowing that the client may be unaware of the full weight of the trade-off — fails the standard of complete and objective professional service. Furthermore, Code Section II.3 requires objective and truthful professional statements, which implicitly prohibits selective framing that presents the shortest route's benefits without contextualizing its costs. The 30-minute savings is a diffuse, incremental benefit distributed across many travelers; the harm is concentrated, severe, and irreversible for a single family. Engineer A's professional judgment is precisely the instrument through which that asymmetry should be surfaced for the state's consideration.
In response to Q103: Engineer A is ethically required to explore and present hybrid route alternatives — such as partial re-alignments that reduce travel time while avoiding or minimizing impact on the farmhouse — before advising the state to choose between only the shortest route and a substantially longer alternative. Presenting a binary choice when intermediate options may exist constitutes a failure of the completeness advisory obligation and potentially misleads the client by artificially constraining the decision space. The Board's own conclusion that Engineer A should advise on 'all feasible and reasonable solutions' confirms that the obligation extends beyond the two endpoints of the spectrum. Failure to investigate hybrid alternatives before presenting the binary choice would constitute a breach of the completeness obligation because it forecloses options the state client cannot independently evaluate without Engineer A's technical expertise. The creative alternative generation obligation is not merely aspirational — it is a professional duty embedded in the faithful agent standard when the stakes involve irreversible harm to third parties.
In response to Q104: Engineer A does not bear a primary fiduciary duty toward the farmhouse owner, but the owner's status as a member of the public — whose welfare Engineer A is obligated to hold paramount under Code Section II.1 — creates a qualified ethical responsibility that falls short of full client-level duty but exceeds mere indifference. Specifically, Engineer A's proactive visit to the farmhouse owner, while not contractually required, was ethically appropriate as an expression of the do-no-harm obligation and the multi-interest balancing principle. However, Engineer A's duty to proactively inform the owner of the eminent domain risk is constrained by the faithful agent obligation to the state client: disclosing the state's legal strategy or condemnation intentions without the state's authorization could constitute a breach of client confidentiality. The appropriate resolution is that Engineer A should ensure the state is fully informed of the owner's opposition and the human stakes involved, while leaving to the state — as the legally empowered party — the decision of whether and how to communicate condemnation risk to the owner. Engineer A's ethical responsibility toward the owner is thus mediated through the state client relationship rather than exercised independently.
In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Obligation and the Do No Harm Obligation do conflict in this case, but the conflict is not irresolvable and does not require Engineer A to abandon either principle entirely. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to serve the state's interest in obtaining an efficient route; the do-no-harm obligation requires Engineer A to avoid recommending a course of action that causes disproportionate, irreversible harm to a third party. The resolution lies in recognizing that faithful agency does not mean uncritical advocacy for the client's preferred outcome — it means providing the client with complete, honest, and professionally competent advice that enables informed decision-making. Engineer A satisfies both obligations simultaneously by fully disclosing the shortest route's technical merits, the owner's opposition, the eminent domain option and its consequences, and all feasible alternatives including hybrid alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse. The tension is resolved not by subordinating one principle to the other, but by ensuring that the state — not Engineer A — makes the ultimate value judgment with full information. Engineer A's role is to expand the decision space, not to make the final choice.
In response to Q202: The Public Welfare Paramount principle does not automatically resolve in favor of the majority of travelers when the harm imposed on the minority is irreversible, concentrated, and involves the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical property. Code Section II.1 requires Engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — a formulation that encompasses the farmhouse owner as a member of the public, not merely the traveling majority. The greatest-good framework, when applied without qualification, risks treating the farmhouse owner's loss as a mere externality to be offset by aggregate travel time savings. A more ethically defensible application of the public welfare standard requires Engineer A to flag that the harm is not merely economic but cultural and historical — categories of loss that resist straightforward aggregation against diffuse time savings. Engineer A's obligation is therefore to ensure the state understands that 'public welfare' in this context is not synonymous with 'majority preference,' and that the irreversibility of demolishing a 100-year-old historic property warrants heightened scrutiny before the state exercises condemnation authority.
In response to Q203: The Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation does not inherently conflict with the Do No Harm Obligation and the Creative Alternative Generation Obligation, provided Engineer A sequences and frames the disclosure appropriately. Disclosing the eminent domain option is ethically required as part of complete and honest professional advice — withholding it would leave the state client with an incomplete picture of its legal options. However, Engineer A can and should present the eminent domain option within a broader advisory framework that simultaneously presents its full consequences — cultural, historical, familial, and reputational — and exhausts creative alternatives before the state treats condemnation as the default path. The concern that disclosing condemnation may foreclose the state's motivation to pursue alternatives is a real risk, but it is best addressed through the framing and sequencing of Engineer A's advice rather than through selective omission. Engineer A should present alternatives first, eminent domain as a last resort with full consequence disclosure, and explicitly recommend exhausting amicable resolution options before condemnation is pursued. This approach honors all three obligations simultaneously.
In response to Q204: The Completeness Advisory Obligation and the Faithful Agent Obligation do not genuinely conflict in this case because faithful agency, properly understood, requires complete disclosure rather than selective advocacy. A faithful agent who withholds feasible alternatives to protect the client's preference for a particular outcome is not serving the client faithfully — they are serving the client's stated preference at the expense of the client's actual interest in making a fully informed decision. The state's preference for the shortest, most cost-efficient route is a legitimate starting point for analysis, but it does not authorize Engineer A to suppress information about alternatives that might lead the state to a different conclusion. Code Section II.4's faithful agent standard is best understood as requiring Engineer A to maximize the quality of the client's decision-making process, not to maximize the probability that the client reaches any particular outcome. Complete disclosure of alternatives, even those that complicate the state's preferred route, is therefore an expression of faithful agency rather than a violation of it.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's proactive visit to the farmhouse owner did not exceed the scope of the engineering contract and did not usurp the client's decision-making authority — it was an expression of the duty to gather material information necessary for complete and honest professional advice. The Kantian faithful agent duty requires Engineer A to treat the client's decision-making capacity as an end in itself, which means providing the client with all information reasonably necessary for an informed choice. Visiting the owner to ascertain their position was a reasonable investigative step that produced material information — the owner's firm refusal to sell — that the state needed to know before committing to the shortest route. The visit did not commit the state to any course of action; it merely surfaced a constraint. The deontological concern about usurping client authority would arise only if Engineer A had negotiated with the owner on the state's behalf, made representations about the state's intentions, or withheld the owner's position from the state. None of those actions are indicated. The visit was therefore within the scope of professional duty, not beyond it.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist standpoint, the 30-minute travel time savings does not self-evidently constitute sufficient public benefit to justify the irreversible destruction of a 100-year-old historic farmhouse through eminent domain, and Engineer A bears a professional obligation to surface this proportionality question explicitly rather than leaving it implicit. The consequentialist calculus is complicated by several factors: the benefit is diffuse and incremental (distributed across many travelers making a two-hour trip), while the harm is concentrated, severe, and irreversible (the permanent destruction of an irreplaceable cultural artifact and the forced displacement of a family with deep historical ties). Additionally, the counterfactual alternative — a two-hour trip — is not itself harmful or dangerous; it is merely less convenient. Consequentialist analysis also requires Engineer A to account for second-order effects: the precedent set by condemning historic properties for incremental travel time savings, the erosion of community trust in infrastructure planning, and the cultural loss to the broader public of a historic landmark. Engineer A's role is not to resolve this calculus for the state, but to ensure the state has the full consequentialist picture — including the costs, not just the benefits — before making its decision.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrated professional integrity and practical wisdom by not stopping at the binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative, and the Board's conclusion that Engineer A should advise on options including physically moving the historic farmhouse confirms that the virtuous engineer is expected to exercise imaginative professional judgment in identifying third-path solutions. A merely competent engineer presents the two obvious options; a virtuous engineer — one embodying practical wisdom, or phronesis — recognizes that the apparent binary is often a false dilemma and actively searches for creative solutions that honor competing values simultaneously. The suggestion of physically relocating the farmhouse is precisely the kind of imaginative alternative that reflects this virtue: it preserves the historic structure, respects the family's attachment to it, enables the shortest route, and avoids the coercive harm of eminent domain. Stopping at the binary choice before exhausting such alternatives would reflect a failure not merely of technical completeness but of the professional character that the NSPE Code of Ethics implicitly demands through its emphasis on serving the public interest and holding public welfare paramount.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A does have an independent duty to disclose the full consequences of eminent domain condemnation — including cultural, historical, and familial harm — to the state client, even when the state already possesses legal knowledge of its own condemnation authority. The state's legal knowledge of eminent domain as a tool does not substitute for Engineer A's professional assessment of its consequences in this specific context. The state's lawyers know that condemnation is legally available; Engineer A knows — through professional site assessment and direct engagement with the owner — the human, cultural, and historical dimensions of what condemnation would destroy in this particular case. Omitting those consequences from Engineer A's advisory would constitute a selective and therefore misleading professional statement, in violation of Code Section II.3's requirement for objective and truthful professional statements. The deontological duty of honest and complete professional disclosure is not discharged merely because the client possesses some relevant knowledge independently; it requires Engineer A to contribute the specific professional knowledge that only Engineer A is positioned to provide.
In response to Q401: If Engineer A had never visited the farmhouse owner and had simply presented the shortest route to the state without disclosing the owner's refusal to sell, Engineer A would have committed an ethical violation through selective omission — even if the state subsequently discovered the owner's opposition independently. The completeness and non-selectivity obligation requires Engineer A to disclose all material information bearing on the client's decision, including known third-party opposition to a proposed route. The owner's refusal to sell is not a peripheral detail; it is a material constraint that directly affects the feasibility, cost, legal complexity, and ethical defensibility of the shortest route. Silence about the owner's opposition would constitute a breach of the faithful agent obligation because it would deprive the state of information Engineer A possessed and the state needed. Furthermore, if the state subsequently exercised eminent domain in ignorance of the owner's firm opposition — opposition that Engineer A knew about — Engineer A's silence would have contributed to an outcome that Engineer A had the professional capacity and obligation to help the state avoid or at least consciously choose with full information.
In response to Q402: If the farmhouse owner had been willing to sell at a fair price, Engineer A's ethical obligations would have been substantially reduced with respect to the conflict between route efficiency and third-party harm — but the historic and cultural significance of the 100-year-old property would still have warranted at least a professional notation to the state. The owner's willingness to sell resolves the consent dimension of the ethical problem but does not eliminate the public interest dimension: a 100-year-old historic farmhouse is a cultural resource whose loss may affect the broader community, not merely the selling family. Engineer A's obligation under Code Section III.2 to serve the public interest would still require flagging the historic significance of the property so the state could consider whether preservation alternatives — such as relocation or adaptive reuse — might serve the public interest better than demolition, even with the owner's consent. However, the weight of this residual obligation is substantially lighter than in the refusal scenario: with owner consent and fair compensation, the primary ethical tension dissolves, and Engineer A's remaining duty is one of professional completeness rather than harm prevention.
In response to Q403: If JKL Engineering's contract with the state had explicitly instructed Engineer A to recommend only the shortest feasible route without considering third-party property impacts, Engineer A would not have been ethically justified in following those contractual instructions without qualification. Code Section II.1's requirement to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public establishes a non-waivable obligation that supersedes contractual directives. The farmhouse owner is a member of the public whose welfare Engineer A is obligated to consider, and a contractual instruction to ignore third-party property impacts would be an instruction to violate a foundational ethical duty. Engineer A's appropriate response would be to advise the state that the contractual scope as written is inconsistent with Engineer A's professional ethical obligations, and to seek either a modification of the scope or, if the state refused, to decline the engagement rather than produce a professionally incomplete and ethically compromised recommendation. The faithful agent obligation under Code Section II.4 does not extend to following client instructions that require Engineer A to suppress material information or ignore foreseeable harm to third parties.
In response to Q404: If no hybrid or creative solution — including physical relocation of the farmhouse — were technically or financially feasible, Engineer A's ethical obligation would shift meaningfully toward a duty to explicitly advise the state that the shortest route's only viable implementation path causes disproportionate harm to a third party, and that this harm warrants serious consideration before proceeding. In the absence of creative alternatives, the binary choice between the shortest route (requiring eminent domain of an irreplaceable historic property) and the longer route becomes unavoidable, and Engineer A's advisory role must include an explicit professional judgment about the proportionality of the harm. This does not mean Engineer A must recommend against the shortest route — that remains the state's decision — but it does mean Engineer A must not present the shortest route as a straightforward technical recommendation without flagging the ethical weight of the condemnation it requires. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should advise on amicable resolution options presupposes that such options exist; if they do not, the obligation transforms from creative alternative generation into explicit harm-proportionality disclosure, ensuring the state makes its choice with full awareness of what it is choosing to impose on the farmhouse owner and the broader public interest in historic preservation.
The central principle tension in this case — between the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer A to serve the state's interest in an efficient route and the Do No Harm Obligation requiring avoidance of irreversible harm to a third party — was resolved not by subordinating one principle to the other, but by reframing the engineer's advisory role as one of creative synthesis. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must advise on 'all feasible and reasonable solutions,' including physically relocating the farmhouse, demonstrates that when faithful agency and harm avoidance appear to conflict, the engineer's ethical response is to expand the solution space rather than choose sides. This resolution teaches that the Faithful Agent Obligation does not require the engineer to advocate for the client's initially preferred option; it requires the engineer to serve the client's legitimate interests, which include avoiding legally and reputationally costly condemnation proceedings when less harmful alternatives exist. The tension is thus dissolved rather than adjudicated: a truly faithful agent who also holds public welfare paramount will proactively generate alternatives that satisfy both obligations simultaneously.
The tension between the Public Welfare Paramount principle — which might favor the shorter route's 30-minute travel time savings for the traveling public — and the Historic and Cultural Resource Impact Consideration was resolved in this case by implicitly rejecting a purely majoritarian consequentialist calculus. The Board's insistence on exhausting amicable and creative alternatives before condemnation signals that diffuse, aggregated public benefit does not automatically override concentrated, severe, and irreversible harm to a single identifiable party, particularly when that harm involves the destruction of irreplaceable cultural and historical property. This case teaches that 'public welfare' under Code provision II.1 is not synonymous with 'greatest aggregate convenience': the welfare of the farmhouse owner's family, as members of the public, is itself a component of public welfare that Engineer A must weigh. The principle prioritization that emerges is that public welfare is paramount but internally plural — it encompasses both the traveling public's interest in a shorter road and the property owner's interest in preservation — and the engineer's obligation is to seek solutions that honor as many of those interests as possible before recommending an approach that sacrifices any of them irreversibly.
The Completeness Advisory Obligation and the Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation interact in a nuanced and potentially self-undermining way that this case implicitly resolves through sequencing. Engineer A is obligated to disclose to the state that eminent domain is legally available — omitting that option would be a selective and incomplete advisory — but the Board's conclusion that Engineer A must first advise on all feasible amicable solutions establishes a clear ethical sequence: creative and harm-minimizing alternatives must be surfaced and genuinely explored before the condemnation option is foregrounded. This sequencing resolves the concern raised in Q203 that disclosing eminent domain prematurely may foreclose the state's motivation to pursue less harmful paths. The principle synthesis here is that completeness does not mean simultaneity: an ethically complete advisory presents options in an order that reflects their proportionality and harm profile, ensuring that the least harmful viable alternatives receive genuine consideration before the most coercive legal mechanism is placed on the table. Presenting eminent domain first, or with equal weight to relocation alternatives, would technically satisfy disclosure but would violate the spirit of the Do No Harm Obligation and the Creative Alternative Generation Obligation by structurally biasing the client toward the most harmful outcome.
When and how must Engineer A disclose to the state client both the farmhouse owner's expressed unwillingness to sell and the full human, cultural, and historical consequences of exercising eminent domain over the historic property?
Engineer A's obligation to disclose the farmhouse owner's refusal to sell and the full consequences of eminent domain to the state client — including when that disclosure obligation arises and what it must encompass
Disclose to the state client — upon first identifying the farmhouse impact during route analysis — both the owner's expressed unwillingness to sell and the full human, cultural, and historical consequences of condemnation, framing eminent domain as a legally available but consequence-laden last resort accompanied by a complete proportionality assessment
Disclose the owner's refusal to sell and the legal availability of eminent domain to the state client after confirming the owner's position through the proactive visit, treating the visit as the threshold event that activates the disclosure duty, and limiting the disclosure to factual route constraints without independent proportionality assessment on the grounds that cultural and historical valuation is a policy judgment reserved for the state
Disclose the eminent domain option and the owner's refusal to the state client as co-equal factual elements of the route analysis without sequencing or framing them relative to creative alternatives, on the grounds that the state as a sovereign authority already possesses full legal and contextual knowledge of condemnation consequences and Engineer A's role is limited to technical route specification rather than policy consequence assessment
Eminent Domain Availability Disclosure Engineer A State Route
Is Engineer A ethically required to investigate and present hybrid route alternatives and creative third-path solutions — including physically relocating the historic farmhouse — before advising the state on a binary choice between the shortest route requiring eminent domain and a substantially longer alternative?
Engineer A's obligation to present a complete comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including hybrid alignments and creative third-path solutions such as physical relocation of the farmhouse — rather than a binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative
Investigate and present to the state client all workable route alternatives — including partial re-alignments, hybrid corridors, and the option of physically relocating the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site — with a full comparative analysis of travel time savings, property impacts, historic resource consequences, cost, and public welfare tradeoffs before advising on either the shortest route or the longer alternative
Present the state client with a complete comparative analysis of the two identified route alternatives — shortest route with eminent domain consequences fully disclosed, and longer route avoiding the farmhouse — while noting that hybrid or relocation options may warrant further investigation if the state directs additional study, on the grounds that Engineer A's contracted scope is route specification rather than structural relocation feasibility assessment
Present the shortest route as the technically optimal recommendation consistent with the state's efficiency objective, disclose the eminent domain requirement and the owner's refusal as material constraints, and advise the state to commission a separate feasibility study for creative alternatives — including farmhouse relocation — before making a final route decision, treating alternative generation as a distinct professional engagement rather than a component of the current route specification contract
Route Alternative Complete Analysis Engineer A JKL State Contract
Does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to assess and communicate the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of the historic farmhouse — explicitly balancing the competing interests of all affected parties — even when the state client has not requested that comparative judgment and the greatest-good principle might facially favor the traveling majority?
Engineer A's obligation to conduct and present a multi-interest balancing analysis that explicitly weighs the competing interests of the traveling public, the historic farmhouse owner, the state client, and the general public — including a proportionality assessment between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property
Conduct and present to the state client an explicit multi-interest proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible displacement of the 100-year-old historic property — identifying the asymmetry between diffuse public benefit and concentrated irreversible harm, flagging the cultural and historical dimensions of the loss as non-fungible public welfare considerations, and framing the greatest-good analysis as internally plural rather than simply majoritarian
Present the state client with a complete technical comparison of route alternatives — including travel time savings, construction cost, and property acquisition requirements — and note the historic significance of the farmhouse as a factual constraint, while leaving the proportionality judgment and interest-balancing analysis to the state as the policy-making authority, on the grounds that weighing competing social values is a governmental function that Engineer A should inform but not perform
Present the state client with a multi-interest analysis that identifies the competing interests of all affected parties and quantifies the travel time benefit, but apply the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number principle as the primary decisional framework — explicitly recommending the shortest route as the option that maximizes aggregate public benefit while disclosing the eminent domain consequences and the owner's opposition as material factors the state must weigh in exercising its sovereign authority
Multi-Interest Balancing Engineer A Route Selection Analysis
At what point must Engineer A disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state, and must that disclosure include the full cultural, historical, and familial consequences of condemnation — even when the state already possesses legal knowledge of its own condemnation authority?
Engineer A: Disclosure Timing and Scope — When and What to Disclose to the State Client Regarding the Farmhouse Conflict and Eminent Domain Consequences
Disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state immediately upon identifying the route impact during analysis, and accompany any disclosure of the eminent domain option with a full professional assessment of its cultural, historical, and familial consequences — sequencing creative alternatives before condemnation in the advisory presentation
Disclose the farmhouse conflict and the eminent domain option to the state after confirming the owner's refusal to sell, treating the owner visit as the threshold event that activates the disclosure duty, and limiting the advisory to legally and technically material facts without independently assessing cultural or familial consequences the state's legal team can evaluate
Disclose the farmhouse conflict and all route options — including eminent domain — simultaneously and without sequencing, presenting condemnation as a co-equal option alongside alternatives, on the grounds that the state as a legally sophisticated client is best positioned to weigh the consequences and that Engineer A's role is technical completeness rather than consequence framing
Is Engineer A ethically required to investigate and present hybrid route alternatives and creative third-path solutions — including partial re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse — before advising the state to choose between the shortest route and a substantially longer alternative, and does presenting only the binary choice constitute a breach of the completeness obligation and a failure of multi-interest balancing?
Engineer A: Route Alternative Analysis Completeness — Whether Engineer A Must Explore and Present Hybrid and Creative Alternatives Before Advising the State on a Binary Route Choice
Investigate and present all technically feasible hybrid and creative alternatives — including partial route re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse — before advising the state on any route choice, framing the binary endpoints only after exhausting intermediate options and documenting infeasibility findings for any alternatives that cannot be pursued
Present the two primary route options — shortest route with eminent domain implications and longer alternative avoiding the farmhouse — with a full proportionality assessment of each, while noting that hybrid alternatives may exist and recommending the state authorize additional scope for their investigation before making a final decision
Deliver the contracted route specification comparing the two primary options within the defined project scope, noting the farmhouse conflict and the owner's opposition as material constraints, and advising the state that creative alternatives such as relocation fall outside the current contract scope and would require a separate engagement to evaluate
Does Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to assess and communicate the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings for the traveling public and the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property — including second-order cultural, communal, and precedential harms — even when the state client has not requested that comparative judgment, and does omitting that framing constitute selective disclosure that distorts the state's decision-making calculus?
Engineer A: Proportionality Assessment and Multi-Interest Balancing — Whether Engineer A Must Independently Assess and Communicate the Proportionality Between the 30-Minute Travel Time Savings and the Irreversible Displacement of the Historic Farmhouse
Independently assess and explicitly communicate to the state the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of the historic farmhouse — including second-order cultural, communal, and precedential harms — framing the asymmetry between diffuse public benefit and concentrated irreversible harm as a material professional judgment the state must weigh before exercising condemnation authority
Present the quantitative route comparison — travel time savings, cost differentials, and third-party impact summary — without independently framing the proportionality judgment, on the grounds that weighing travel efficiency against cultural heritage loss is a policy determination within the state's sovereign authority and outside the scope of engineering professional judgment
Include a proportionality notation in the technical report flagging the asymmetry between diffuse travel time savings and concentrated irreversible harm, while explicitly deferring the value judgment to the state and recommending the state consult historic preservation specialists and legal counsel before proceeding — treating Engineer A's role as surfacing the question rather than framing its weight
When Engineer A identifies that the shortest route requires displacing a 100-year-old historic farmhouse whose owner refuses to sell, what form of advisory does Engineer A owe the state client — and when does that obligation arise?
Engineer A: Faithful Agent Disclosure and Harm Minimization Advisory to State Client
Disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state immediately upon identifying the route impact, visit the owner to gather material information, and present the owner's refusal and the full proportionality of harm to the state as part of the initial route advisory — before any route recommendation is finalized
Complete the route analysis and present the shortest route recommendation to the state first, then disclose the owner's opposition and eminent domain implications as a follow-on advisory once the state has confirmed its preference for the shorter route — treating owner engagement as a subsequent implementation-phase task rather than a route-selection input
Disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state upon identifying the impact, but limit the advisory to technical route geometry and eminent domain availability without conducting a proactive owner visit or providing a proportionality assessment of travel time savings versus cultural harm — on the grounds that owner negotiation and value-weighting are outside the contracted engineering scope
Is Engineer A ethically required to investigate and present hybrid and creative route alternatives — including partial re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse — before advising the state on a binary choice between the shortest route and a longer alternative, and does failure to do so breach the completeness obligation?
Engineer A: Complete Comparative Alternatives Presentation Including Creative Third-Path Solutions
Investigate and present all feasible hybrid alternatives — including partial route re-alignments and physical relocation of the farmhouse to another appropriate site — before advising the state on any route choice; sequence eminent domain disclosure after alternatives are exhausted and accompany it with full cultural, historical, and proportionality consequence assessment
Present the binary choice between the shortest route and the longer alternative to the state, disclose eminent domain availability and the owner's refusal simultaneously with both options, and leave the proportionality judgment and any creative alternative investigation to the state as the legally empowered decision-maker — on the grounds that route optimization within the identified corridor is the contracted engineering scope and value-weighting between efficiency and cultural preservation is a policy determination for the client
Present the binary route choice with an explicit proportionality assessment comparing the 30-minute travel time savings against the irreversible cultural and familial harm of condemnation, recommend that the state authorize Engineer A to investigate hybrid alternatives before a final route decision is made, and flag physical relocation as a potential third-path option requiring further feasibility study — without conducting that feasibility study independently prior to client authorization
When the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to serve the state's interest in the most efficient route — directly conflicts with the Do No Harm Obligation — requiring avoidance of irreversible harm to the farmhouse owner — how should Engineer A structure the advisory to honor both obligations without subordinating either?
Engineer A: Resolving the Conflict Between Faithful Agent Obligation and Do No Harm Obligation When Shortest Route Requires Eminent Domain of Historic Property
Present the state with a complete multi-option advisory that sequences creative and hybrid alternatives first, frames eminent domain as a last resort accompanied by full cultural and proportionality consequence disclosure, and explicitly advises the state that faithful service to its legitimate interests includes awareness of the legal, reputational, and ethical costs of condemnation — leaving the final route decision to the state with full informational basis
Present the shortest route as the primary recommendation consistent with the contracted scope, disclose the eminent domain requirement and the owner's refusal as implementation constraints, and note the longer alternative as a fallback — without providing an independent proportionality assessment or harm-weighting judgment, on the grounds that the state as the legally empowered client is best positioned to weigh efficiency against condemnation costs and that providing unsolicited value judgments risks usurping the client's policy-making authority
Advise the state that Engineer A cannot recommend the shortest route without qualification given the irreversible harm its only viable implementation path imposes on the farmhouse owner, present the longer route as the professionally defensible recommendation, and offer to conduct further analysis of hybrid alternatives if the state wishes to pursue a middle path — framing the advisory as a professional judgment that the disproportionality of harm warrants recommending against the shortest route absent feasible alternatives
Developer F Waterfront Development Client
{'type': 'Private developer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-4'}
Private developer who retained Engineer A for a major waterfront development project in City X requiring public hearing presentation and planning board approval.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Waterfront Development Hearing Case'}
Engineer A was retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
Disproportionate Impact on Property Owner Framework
Professional engineering ethics practice
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Framework for Infrastructure Decisions
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Framework
the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years
Engineer A in ethical analysis of route recommendation
Provides methodological grounding for Engineer A to evaluate whether the 30-minute travel time savings justifies the disproportionate burden placed on a single family whose 100-year-old farmhouse would be condemned, and to consider creative mitigation alternatives
Eminent Domain Availability Disclosure Constraint Engineer A JKL State Route
Engineer A has identified that the shortest route requires addressing the historic farmhouse, and is aware that eminent domain is legally available to the state. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from omitting this option from the route recommendation.
Eminent Domain Availability Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is constrained from omitting or concealing from the state client the legally available option of exercising eminent domain to acquire the historic farmhouse for the shortest route — the eminent domain option is a material fact about route feasibility that must be disclosed in the route recommendation, and Engineer A cannot present the shortest route as infeasible or unavailable without disclosing that eminent domain remains a legal mechanism for the state to proceed.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (complete and objective professional statements); Eminent Domain Legal Framework; Faithful Agent Route Specification State Contract Obligation
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
Throughout the route specification engagement and at the time of route recommendation submission
State legislature and constitutional authority
State Eminent Domain and Condemnation Statutes
the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns
Engineer A and the state client in evaluating route options
Establishes the legal option available to the state to compel acquisition of the historic farmhouse for the road project, which Engineer A must consider when advising the client on route feasibility and implications
Project advisory phase now includes a coercive legal option; Engineer A's recommendation carries significant weight in determining whether a family loses their home; the ethical complexity of the engineer's role escalates substantially
Concurrent with or immediately following owner's refusal to sell
As a result of the owner's refusal, the legal mechanism of eminent domain becomes a recognized and live option for the state to compel acquisition of the farmhouse property, fundamentally changing the ethical stakes of the project.
Engineer A Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis Route Case
Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to receive, analyze, and synthesize the competing interests of multiple stakeholders — including the traveling public (travel time savings), the state client (efficient infrastructure), and the historic farmhouse owner (preservation of multi-generational family property) — and to present a balanced, objective synthesis of those competing perspectives to the state client decision-makers.
Applied during route specification for a new public road connecting two towns, where the interests of the traveling public, the state, and the historic property owner must be balanced.
Engineer A's identification of the tension between the shortest route's travel time savings and the historic farmhouse owner's unwillingness to sell, requiring synthesis of these competing interests in the route recommendation presented to the state.
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse
Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else.
Engineer A Creative Third Path Solution Route Case
Creative Hybrid Solution Design Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to move beyond the binary choice between the shortest route (requiring farmhouse condemnation) and longer alternatives (avoiding the farmhouse entirely) to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path route solutions — such as partial alignments that capture some travel time savings while avoiding or minimizing impact to the historic farmhouse.
Applied during route specification for a new public road, where the binary choice between the shortest route and longer alternatives may not exhaust all workable options.
The route specification context, in which Engineer A's obligation to present all workable alternatives includes the obligation to explore creative hybrid solutions that may resolve the tension between travel efficiency and historic property preservation.
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route
Engineer A Disproportionate Impact Assessment Historic Farmhouse Route Case
Disproportionate Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to identify, analyze, and communicate whether the shortest proposed route alternative will disproportionately burden the historic farmhouse owner — a private individual whose multi-generational family property would be condemned against the owner's expressed wishes — and to communicate those findings clearly to the state client decision-makers.
Applied during route specification upon identifying that the shortest workable route would require displacement of a historic multi-generational family farmhouse whose owner is unwilling to sell.
Engineer A's recognition that the shortest route would require the state to address the impact to the historic farmhouse, and Engineer A's proactive visit to the owner to understand the nature and extent of that impact.
Engineer A Eminent Domain Consequence Disclosure Route Case
Eminent Domain Consequence Disclosure to Public Agency Client Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to fully disclose to the state client all material consequences of exercising eminent domain over the historic farmhouse — including the legal process, compensation obligations, community relations impacts, and the human consequences of displacing an unwilling multi-generational family from a historically significant property.
Applied during route specification upon learning that the farmhouse owner is unwilling to sell and that eminent domain is legally available to the state.
Engineer A's awareness of the eminent domain option and knowledge of the farmhouse owner's unwillingness to sell, which together create the obligation and the informational basis to disclose the full consequences of condemnation to the state client.
Engineer A Eminent Domain Legal Framework Knowledge Route Case
Eminent Domain Legal Framework Knowledge Capability
Engineer A possesses knowledge of the eminent domain legal framework sufficient to recognize that the state has the option to exercise eminent domain and condemn the historic farmhouse to proceed with the shortest route.
Applied during route specification for a new public road connecting two towns, upon discovering that the farmhouse owner is unwilling to sell.
Engineer A's awareness that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse, enabling disclosure of this option to the state client.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Route Specification JKL State Contract
Faithful Agent Obligation Scope Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize the scope and limits of the faithful agent obligation to the state client — specifically, that faithful agent duties require diligently serving the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently while also fully disclosing all material information, including the historic farmhouse impact and the owner's unwillingness to sell, rather than suppressing that information to simplify the recommendation.
Applied during route specification under a state contract held by JKL Engineering, where faithful agent duties to the state must be harmonized with complete disclosure obligations.
Engineer A's dual recognition that the shortest route serves the state's efficiency objective and that the historic farmhouse impact and owner unwillingness are material facts that must be disclosed to the state client as part of faithful agent service.
JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns.
Engineer A Historic Property Cultural Significance Assessment Route Case
Historic Property Cultural Significance Assessment Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize and assess the cultural and historical significance of the multi-generational family farmhouse as a material factor in route alternative analysis and recommendation.
Applied during route specification upon identifying that the shortest workable route would require addressing the impact to a historic family farmhouse.
Engineer A's identification of the historic farmhouse — over 100 years old — as a property whose displacement requires specific attention in the route analysis, and Engineer A's proactive visit to the owner to understand the family's attachment to the property.
Engineer A Informed Decision Making Facilitation Route Case
Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to structure and present the route analysis in a manner that facilitates a genuinely informed decision by the state client — including presenting complete comparative information about all workable alternatives, identifying the eminent domain option and its consequences, disclosing the farmhouse owner's unwillingness to sell, and ensuring that the state has all material information needed to make an informed route selection decision.
Applied during route specification for a new public road under a state contract, where the state client must make an informed decision about route selection based on complete professional analysis.
Engineer A's obligation to present the state with a complete comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives, including the shortest route with its travel time savings and historic property impact, and the eminent domain option with its full consequences.
Engineer A Property Owner Proactive Site Visit Route Case
Property Owner Proactive Site Visit and Stakeholder Inquiry Capability
Engineer A possesses and exercises the capability to proactively visit the farmhouse owner prior to finalizing route recommendations, directly inquiring about the owner's willingness to sell and accurately recording the owner's response for disclosure to the state client.
Applied during route specification for a new public road, prior to finalizing route recommendations to the state client.
Engineer A's proactive visit to the farmhouse owner, during which Engineer A learned that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else — information that is material to the route analysis and must be disclosed to the client.
Engineer A Route Selection Amicable Resolution Alternative Generation
Creative Amicable Resolution Alternative Generation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to generate, evaluate, and present creative alternative solutions — including physical relocation of the historic farmhouse — that may achieve the state's infrastructure objectives while avoiding or minimizing harm to the farmhouse owners, and to advise the state on the feasibility and reasonableness of such alternatives.
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under state contract to specify road route, where shortest route requires condemnation of historic farmhouse whose owners have expressed unwillingness to sell
Obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution, including the option of physically moving the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site
Engineer A (Route Selection Present Case)
Among these might include an offer to physically move the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.
Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public.
Engineer A Route Selection Complete Comparative Analysis
Route Selection Multi-Criteria Comparative Analysis Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to conduct and present a systematic multi-criteria comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including evaluation of travel time savings, construction cost, land acquisition requirements, historic property impacts, and community effects — enabling informed decision-making by the state client.
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under state contract to specify road route connecting two towns, where shortest route requires condemnation of historic farmhouse
Obligation to present the state with a complete comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives including the shortest route requiring condemnation and longer alternatives avoiding the farmhouse
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse
Engineer A Route Selection Eminent Domain Client Authority Non-Usurpation Present Case
State client has legal authority to exercise eminent domain over historic farmhouse; farmhouse owners have refused voluntary sale; Engineer A must present the eminent domain option without usurping the state's policy decision about whether to exercise it
Eminent Domain Client Authority Non-Usurpation Constraint
Engineer A must present the eminent domain option to the state client as a legally available tool — including its full consequences for the historic farmhouse owners — without usurping the state's sovereign authority to decide whether to exercise that power, prohibiting Engineer A from either concealing the eminent domain option or unilaterally recommending its exercise without full disclosure of the historic, social, and human consequences of condemnation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Eminent Domain Legal Framework; BER Case analysis
it is the Board of Ethical Review's position that Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse
Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public
Engineer A Route Selection Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure
Engineer A must possess the capability to fully disclose to the state client all material consequences of exercising eminent domain over the historic farmhouse — including legal process requirements, compensation obligations, community relations impacts, project timeline implications, and the human consequences of displacing an unwilling multi-generational family from a historically significant property.
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under state contract to specify road route; shortest route requires condemnation of historic farmhouse whose owners have expressed unwillingness to sell
Obligation to inform the state of the full consequences of condemnation proceedings as part of the complete comparative analysis of route alternatives
which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings
Engineer A Route Selection Historic Property Cultural Significance Assessment
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize, assess, and communicate the cultural, historical, and community significance of the multi-generational family farmhouse — including its over-100-year history and the family's expressed unwillingness to sell — and to incorporate that significance as a weighted factor in route alternative analysis and recommendation.
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under state contract to specify road route; historic multi-generational family farmhouse lies in path of shortest workable route
Obligation to identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic multi-generational family farmhouse before recommending condemnation
Engineer A Route Selection Multi-Criteria Comparative Analysis Route Case
Engineer A possesses the capability to conduct and present a systematic multi-criteria comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including the shortest route with its travel time savings and historic property impact, and longer alternatives that avoid the farmhouse — enabling the state client to make an informed route selection decision.
Applied during route specification for a new public road connecting two towns under a state contract held by JKL Engineering.
Engineer A's identification of the shortest workable route and its 30-minute travel time savings, alongside recognition of the historic farmhouse impact, establishing the factual basis for a comparative route analysis that must be presented completely to the state client.
Engineer A Route Selection Multi-Interest Balancing Constraint Present Case
Engineer A retained by state to specify road route connecting two towns; competing interests include state efficiency interest in shortest route, traveling public interest in travel time savings, and historic farmhouse owners' interest in preservation of 100-year-old family property
Multi-Interest Route Selection Balancing Obligation
Engineer A is constrained from presenting a route recommendation that serves only the state's efficiency interest (shortest route) or only the farmhouse owners' interest (longer route) without conducting and presenting a multi-criteria evaluation that explicitly balances the competing interests of the state, the two towns, and the historic farmhouse owners.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis establishing multi-interest balancing obligation
Throughout the route specification engagement
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'Present case'}
Retained by the state to evaluate and specify the route for a new public road connecting two towns, bearing obligations to balance the interests of the state, the two towns, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse, and to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions including creative alternatives to condemnation.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'State Transportation Infrastructure Client Present Case'}
{'type': 'stakeholder', 'target': 'Historic Farmhouse Owner Present Case'}
Engineer A Route Selection Proactive Stakeholder Visit Disclosure
Engineer A must possess the capability to proactively visit the historic farmhouse owners prior to finalizing route recommendations, directly inquire about their willingness to sell or otherwise accommodate the proposed route, accurately record their response of unwillingness, and disclose that response as material information to the state client.
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under state contract to specify road route connecting two towns; historic farmhouse lies in path of shortest workable route
Having proactively visited the farmhouse owner and learned of the owner's unwillingness to sell, Engineer A is obligated to disclose this material information to the state client
Engineer A Route Selection Travel Time Benefit Proportionality Assessment Present Case
Shortest route achieves travel time savings but requires condemnation of historic 100-year-old family farmhouse; longer route avoids condemnation but reduces travel time benefit; Engineer A must assess proportionality of benefit versus burden
Travel Time Benefit Disproportionate Burden Proportionality Constraint
Engineer A must explicitly assess and disclose in the route recommendation whether the travel time savings achieved by the shortest route is proportionate to the burden imposed on the historic farmhouse owners — including the irreversible destruction of a 100-year-old family property whose owners have expressed unwillingness to sell — prohibiting Engineer A from presenting the travel time savings as self-evidently justifying condemnation without a disclosed proportionality analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis establishing multi-interest balancing and harm minimization obligations
while in general the Board is of the view that the rule in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail under the circumstances as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue
Engineer A Waterfront Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment
Engineer A presented Developer F's waterfront development design to City X Planning Board, highlighting environmental improvements; Engineer A was aware of potential traffic and pollution increases but was not questioned on these factors and did not volunteer the information; other witnesses subsequently testified about these issues
Public Hearing Selective Testimony Relevance Judgment Non-Mandatory Volunteering Constraint
Engineer A was not ethically required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution at the City X Planning Board hearing when Engineer A's professional judgment determined that such information was not 'relevant and pertinent' to the hearing purpose, provided Engineer A would have answered honestly if directly questioned.
BER Case 05-4; NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a (relevance and pertinence standard)
Engineer A was aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and did not volunteer this fact
During the City X Planning Board public hearing on Developer F's waterfront development project
Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testified about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
The Board of Ethical Review concluded that Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent'
Engineer A determining the shortest workable route before Engineer A visiting the farmhouse owner
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route... Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner
Engineer A determining the shortest workable route
Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board (BER 05-4) before Other witnesses testifying at the public hearing (BER 05-4)
Engineer A made a presentation and responded to questions... Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testified
Engineer A's presentation to City Planning Board (BER 05-4)
Other witnesses testifying at the public hearing (BER 05-4)
Engineer A's visit to the farmhouse owner before Engineer A advising the state on how to proceed
Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling... Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain
Engineer A's visit to the farmhouse owner
Engineer A advising the state on how to proceed
Engineer C Resident Challenger Landfill Case
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Town resident and engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
A resident of the town who publicly challenged the environmental soundness of the higher-contour landfill design, raising concerns about methane gas migration and groundwater contamination, and questioning whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site.
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer Landfill Case'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer Landfill Case'}
Resident Engineer Public Interest Challenger
Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and pollute the nearby ground water
Engineer C publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site
Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard - Public Hearing Testimony
Professional norm governing engineer disclosure obligations in public hearings (derived from BER Case 05-4 and related decisions)
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
engineers can reach different conclusions when looking at the same set of facts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing the scope of disclosure obligations for engineers in public advocacy and presentation roles
Applied to establish that engineers presenting at public hearings are not automatically obligated to volunteer all potentially relevant adverse information, but must respond truthfully when questioned and must exercise professional judgment about relevance
Engineers A and B Landfill Honest Objectivity Public Controversy Constraint
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater contamination; the issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy; Engineers A and B were obligated to respond honestly and objectively
Engineers A and B (Town Engineer and Consulting Engineer)
Public Controversy Honest Objectivity Obligation
Engineers A and B were constrained to remain honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with public controversy about the landfill redesign — prohibiting defensive misrepresentation of the environmental risks or dismissal of Engineer C's concerns without honest professional engagement.
When confronted with such situations, professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities
During and after the public controversy stirred by Engineer C's public statements about the landfill redesign
Farmhouse Owner Historic Property Owner Stakeholder
{'property_type': 'Historic family farmhouse', 'property_age': 'Over 100 years', 'stated_preference': 'No interest in selling to the state or anyone else', 'legal_vulnerability': 'Subject to potential eminent domain condemnation'}
The farmhouse owner is a private property owner whose historic family farmhouse (over 100 years old) lies in the path of the shortest workable road route. The owner has explicitly refused to sell the property to the state or anyone else, making the property a central ethical constraint in Engineer A's route recommendation.
{'type': 'engaged_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Route Selection Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_to_authority_of', 'target': 'State Transportation Infrastructure Client'}
a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route
Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else
Farmhouse existing for over 100 years before Present case / Engineer A's route determination
Present case / Engineer A's route determination
Route planning enters complication phase; Engineer A must now weigh public benefit against private heritage loss; project timeline and feasibility become uncertain
During route selection phase, after shortest route is identified
During route analysis, Engineer A discovers that the shortest viable route requires acquiring land containing a historic family farmhouse over 100 years old, creating an immediate heritage and property conflict.
{'type': 'Private property owner', 'property_significance': 'Historic family farmhouse', 'case_reference': 'Present case'}
Owners of a historic multi-generational family farmhouse located within or adjacent to the proposed road corridor who have expressed unwillingness to sell, whose interests Engineer A must balance against the public need for the road, and for whom creative alternatives such as physical relocation of the farmhouse may be explored.
{'type': 'stakeholder', 'target': 'Engineer A Route Selection Present Case'}
{'type': 'stakeholder', 'target': 'State Transportation Infrastructure Client Present Case'}
the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse
Among these might include an offer to physically move the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party
Historic Property Impact Consideration - 100-Year Farmhouse
Federal Highway Administration, State Historic Preservation Office, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
Federal and State Historic Preservation Requirements for Transportation Projects
Historic Property Impact Assessment Standard
Engineer A in route evaluation and recommendation
Provides the professional and regulatory framework within which Engineer A must assess the significance of the historic farmhouse and the adequacy of the state's obligation to 'address the impact' before recommending the shortest route
Applicable at time of route specification
Historic Resource Third-Party Impact Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Route Recommendation
The farmhouse has existed for over 100 years and carries historic and familial significance. Engineer A must disclose this historic resource impact as a material factor in the route recommendation.
Historic Property Displacement Harm Minimization Route Obligation
Engineer A is constrained from omitting from the route recommendation the historic significance of the farmhouse — which has existed for over 100 years — as a material factor bearing on the harm caused by the shortest route alignment, and must identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic property as part of the complete comparative analysis, prohibiting presentation of the shortest route without disclosure of the historic resource impact.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Historic Property Impact Assessment Standard; Historic Resource Third-Party Impact State
{'entity_type': 'Private consulting engineering firm', 'contract': 'State contract for road route specification'}
JKL Engineering is the engineering firm that employs Engineer A and holds the state contract to specify the road route, bearing organizational responsibility for the professional services delivered and the ethical conduct of its engineers.
{'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'State (Transportation Infrastructure Client)'}
{'type': 'employs', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Engineer A is a professional engineer with JKL Engineering
JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns
JKL Engineering State Route Contract Engagement
From contract execution through completion of route specification
JKL Engineering's contractual relationship with the state for road route specification
Completion or termination of the route specification contract
Execution of contract between JKL Engineering and the state
JKL Engineering contract with the state before Engineer A determining the shortest workable route
JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route... Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes
Landfill Public Controversy Arose (BER 79-2)
Engineers in BER 79-2 faced obligation to respond to public opposition by agreeing to redesign; this precedent establishes that public controversy is not merely a political problem but an ethical trigger for engineers
Prior case (1979), referenced in Discussion section
In the referenced BER 79-2 case, public controversy emerged around a landfill project, triggering ethical obligations for engineers to respond to community concerns and consider redesign options rather than proceeding with the original plan.
Landfill Public Controversy Arose (BER 79-2) → Prior BER Cases Referenced
In the referenced BER 79-2 case, public controversy emerged around a landfill project, triggering ethical review that produced precedent now introduced into the analysis to provide ethical guidance on the road route case
Without the public controversy in BER 79-2, the redesign decision would not have been reviewed, and the ethical precedent would not exist to inform the current case analysis
Engineers A and B's agreement to redesign the landfill creating a reviewable ethical decision
Public controversy arising in BER 79-2 sufficient to trigger formal ethical review
Relevance of that precedent to the current road route ethical dilemma
The BER's formal adjudication producing a documented precedent
Shared. Engineers A and B in BER 79-2 (for the redesign decision) and the BER (for formalizing the precedent)
Public controversy + engineer response decision + BER formal review = documented ethical precedent applicable to analogous cases
NSPE Code of Ethics - Honest and Objective Professional Statements
National Society of Professional Engineers
professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in framing the ethical obligations of Engineer A
Referenced as the foundational normative authority establishing that professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with situations involving public controversy
NSPE Code of Ethics - Primary Ethical Authority
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes
Engineer A in evaluating ethical obligations in road route specification
Governs Engineer A's professional obligations regarding the recommendation of route options, disclosure of impacts to the client (state), and the balancing of public welfare against property owner interests when the shortest route requires eminent domain
Voluntary land acquisition is no longer viable; project must now proceed via eminent domain or route redesign; Engineer A's advisory role becomes critically important
After Engineer A visits the farmhouse owner directly
The farmhouse owner, upon being visited by Engineer A, explicitly refuses to sell the property, foreclosing voluntary acquisition and forcing the project into a contested proceeding.
Owner Refuses Land Sale → Eminent Domain Option Surfaces
As a result of the owner's refusal, the legal mechanism of eminent domain becomes a recognized and live option that the state may exercise to compel acquisition of the property
Had the owner agreed to sell voluntarily, eminent domain would not have surfaced as a necessary consideration in this case
Engineer A's awareness and recognition of that legal authority
Owner's explicit refusal to voluntarily sell
State's pre-existing legal authority to exercise eminent domain
The public infrastructure purpose of the road project
Shared. Owner (refusal decision) and State (holder of eminent domain authority)
Voluntary sale refusal + state eminent domain authority + public purpose project = eminent domain becomes a live option
The ethical analysis gains historical and professional depth; Engineer A's obligations are now contextualized within established BER reasoning; the recommendation must be consistent with professional precedent
In the Discussion section, contextualizing the present case
Two prior Board of Ethical Review cases (BER 79-2 and BER 05-4) are introduced into the analysis, providing precedent context that frames Engineer A's current dilemma within established professional ethical reasoning.
Public Interest Balancing Framework - Multi-Stakeholder Infrastructure Conflicts
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
BER-derived framework for balancing competing stakeholder interests in infrastructure routing and condemnation contexts
the rule in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail under the circumstances
there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in analyzing Engineer A's advisory obligations to the state
Applied by the Board to establish Engineer A's obligation to balance interests of the state, two towns, and historic farmhouse owners, and to explore creative alternatives such as physical relocation of the farmhouse before recommending condemnation proceedings
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
At what point in the route selection process did Engineer A's obligation to disclose the farmhouse conflict to the state arise — upon first identifying the impact, or only after visiting the owner and confirming refusal to sell?
Does Engineer A have an independent ethical obligation to assess and communicate the proportionality between the 30-minute travel time savings and the irreversible displacement of a 100-year-old historic property, even if the state client has not requested that comparative judgment?
Is Engineer A ethically required to explore and present hybrid route alternatives — such as partial re-alignment that reduces travel time while avoiding the farmhouse — before advising the state on either the shortest route or a longer alternative, and does failure to do so constitute a breach of the completeness obligation?
Does Engineer A bear any ethical responsibility toward the farmhouse owner as a third-party stakeholder — for example, an obligation to proactively inform the owner of the eminent domain risk — or does Engineer A's duty run exclusively to the state client and the general public?
Does the Faithful Agent Obligation — requiring Engineer A to serve the state client's interest in obtaining the most efficient route — conflict with the Do No Harm Obligation when the most efficient route requires displacing a 100-year-old historic property whose owners have explicitly refused to sell?
Does the Public Welfare Paramount principle — which might favor the greatest good for the traveling public through a shorter route — conflict with the Historic and Cultural Resource Impact Consideration when the benefited majority is large but the harmed party is a single family with deep historical ties to irreplaceable property?
Does the Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation — requiring Engineer A to inform the state that condemnation is legally available — conflict with the Do No Harm Obligation and the Creative Alternative Generation Obligation, insofar as disclosing the condemnation option may foreclose the state's motivation to pursue less harmful alternatives?
Does the Completeness Advisory Obligation — requiring Engineer A to present all feasible route alternatives fully and without selective omission — conflict with the Faithful Agent Obligation when complete disclosure of alternatives might undermine the state's preference for the shortest and most cost-efficient route?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their duty as a faithful agent to the state client by proactively visiting the farmhouse owner and disclosing the owner's refusal to sell, or did that visit exceed the scope of the engineering contract and risk usurping the client's decision-making authority?
From a consequentialist standpoint, does the 30-minute travel time savings for the traveling public constitute sufficient public benefit to justify the irreversible destruction of a 100-year-old historic farmhouse through eminent domain, and how should Engineer A weigh diffuse public gains against concentrated, severe harm to a single family?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and practical wisdom by exhausting creative third-path alternatives — such as physically relocating the farmhouse — before presenting the eminent domain option to the state, or did stopping at the binary choice of shortest route versus longer route reflect a failure of imaginative professional judgment?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A have an independent duty to disclose the full consequences of eminent domain condemnation — including cultural, historical, and familial harm — to the state client, even when the state already possesses legal knowledge of its own condemnation authority, and does omitting those consequences constitute a violation of the duty of honest and objective professional statements?
If Engineer A had never visited the farmhouse owner and had simply presented the shortest route to the state without disclosing the owner's refusal to sell, would the state's subsequent exercise of eminent domain have implicated Engineer A in an ethical violation, and would Engineer A's silence about the owner's opposition constitute a breach of the completeness and non-selectivity obligation?
What if the farmhouse owner had been willing to sell at a fair price — would Engineer A's ethical obligations have been substantially reduced to a straightforward route optimization analysis, or would the historic and cultural significance of the 100-year-old property still have required Engineer A to flag preservation alternatives to the state?
If JKL Engineering's contract with the state had explicitly instructed Engineer A to recommend only the shortest feasible route without considering third-party property impacts, would Engineer A have been ethically justified in following those contractual instructions, or would the paramount obligation to protect public welfare — including the welfare of the farmhouse owner as a member of the public — override the client's contractual directive?
If no hybrid or creative solution — such as physically relocating the farmhouse — were technically or financially feasible, would Engineer A's ethical obligation shift from amicable resolution advisory to a duty to explicitly recommend against the shortest route on the grounds that its only viable implementation path causes disproportionate harm to a third party, even if that recommendation conflicts with the state client's preference for the shorter road?
Not surfacing the option could leave the state without full information needed to make a policy decision
Recommending condemnation could result in forced displacement of a family from a multigenerational historic property
Obligation to be fully informed before advising the client
Awareness of legal mechanisms relevant to engineering projects
Honest and objective professional statements
Understand the full range of legal and practical options available to the state so that any recommendation to the client is complete and informed
Obligation to present the state with a complete picture of available options
Ability to assess legal and procedural options within engineering practice
Knowledge of eminent domain as it relates to infrastructure projects
Professional judgment about the ethical implications of available legal tools
After the site visit and owner's refusal, before advising the state
Engineer A consciously identifies and weighs the state's legal authority to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse as a known available option for proceeding with the shortest route, triggering the ethical decision of what to recommend.
Recognize Eminent Domain Option → Advise State on Balanced Solutions
Engineer A consciously identifies and weighs the state's legal authority to exercise eminent domain, which then informs and shapes the balanced advisory presentation Engineer A provides to the state covering the full range of feasible and reasonable options
Had Engineer A not recognized or acknowledged the eminent domain option, the advice to the state would have been incomplete and potentially misleading, violating professional ethical obligations
Engineer A's ethical obligation under engineering codes to present complete and honest advice
Engineer A's knowledge of the owner's refusal and the heritage significance of the property
Engineer A's professional awareness of eminent domain as a legal tool
The existence of multiple viable options including route alternatives and eminent domain
Awareness of eminent domain + ethical duty of complete disclosure + multiple viable options = obligation to present balanced advisory
Project enters its most ethically complex phase; Engineer A's professional judgment must now integrate technical, legal, social, and heritage considerations simultaneously; the recommendation will have lasting consequences for all stakeholders
After owner refuses sale; before Engineer A advises the state
The combination of the identified shortest route, the historic farmhouse's presence, and the owner's refusal creates a fully crystallized ethical dilemma that cannot be resolved by purely technical means, requiring Engineer A to balance competing legitimate interests.
Professional engineering practice norms and NEPA alternative analysis requirements
Professional Norms for Infrastructure Route Alternative Analysis
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip
Engineer A in fulfilling the route specification contract with the state
Establishes Engineer A's professional obligation to evaluate and present route alternatives — including longer routes that avoid the farmhouse — so the state client can make an informed decision weighing travel time savings against property displacement and eminent domain use
Potential displacement of a family with generational ties to the property
Route would require acquisition of or impact to a privately owned historic farmhouse
Obligation to provide technically sound and efficient engineering recommendations
Obligation to serve the public interest through optimized infrastructure design
Greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian principle)
Honest and objective professional judgment
Identify the most efficient engineering solution that minimizes travel time and serves the greatest number of road users
Cost-benefit assessment of alternative alignments
Recognition of land use and property impact issues
Route determination phase, after contract acceptance and before site visit
Engineer A identifies and selects the shortest workable road route between the two towns, determining it would save approximately 30 minutes compared to alternative routes, while recognizing it requires land occupied by a historic farmhouse.
Select Shortest Viable Route → Historic Farmhouse Identified
Engineer A identifies and selects the shortest workable road route, determining that this path requires acquiring land containing the historic farmhouse, directly surfacing the heritage conflict
Had Engineer A selected an alternative longer route from the outset, the farmhouse conflict may not have been surfaced, though it would still exist as a latent issue
Decision to prioritize shortest route as primary selection criterion
Engineer A's technical competence to accurately map the route
Historic farmhouse physically located within the shortest-route corridor
Shortest-route criterion + farmhouse location in that corridor = inevitable identification of conflict
Several redesigns not accepted (BER 79-2) before Town council requesting the final accepted design (BER 79-2)
After several redesigns were not accepted, the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an accepted solution
Several redesigns not accepted (BER 79-2)
Town council requesting the final accepted design (BER 79-2)
State Environmental Laws - Landfill Design Requirements
State legislature and environmental regulatory agency
State environmental laws governing sanitary landfill design, including minimum setback and maximum slope requirements
the town council requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs for the existing site at higher final contours, in accordance with state environmental laws
At the federal, state, and local levels there is a growing body of law and regulation designed to establish governing criteria
Engineers A and B in BER Case 79-2; NSPE Board of Ethical Review in evaluating their conduct
Referenced in BER Case 79-2 as the regulatory framework within which Engineers A and B operated when redesigning the landfill to higher contours, establishing that compliance with state environmental law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for ethical conduct
State Transportation Infrastructure Client Present Case
{'type': 'State government client', 'case_reference': 'Present case'}
The state client that retained Engineer A to specify the route for a new public road connecting two towns, bearing authority over final route selection including potential condemnation proceedings, and subject to obligations to receive complete engineering recommendations regarding all viable alternatives and property impacts.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Route Selection Present Case'}
State Transportation Infrastructure Client
Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter
{'type': 'Municipal legislative body', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
The municipal legislative body that retained Engineers A and B, directed multiple redesigns of the landfill, and ultimately accepted a design with higher final contours incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer A Town Engineer Landfill Case'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer B Consulting Engineer Landfill Case'}
the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an accepted solution, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes
Town council's search for alternate disposal location (BER 79-2) before Town council requesting new designs at higher final contours (BER 79-2)
The town council had sought an alternate disposal location, but had not been able to locate one. It then requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs
Town council's search for alternate disposal location (BER 79-2)
Town council requesting new designs at higher final contours (BER 79-2)
Travel Time Benefit Historic Property Burden Proportionality Constraint Engineer A Route
The shortest route saves 30 minutes on a two-hour trip but requires condemning a 100-year-old historic farmhouse whose owners have firmly refused to sell. Engineer A must assess and disclose whether this benefit justifies the burden.
Engineer A is constrained from presenting the 30-minute travel time savings as self-evidently justifying condemnation of the 100-year-old historic family farmhouse without conducting and disclosing an explicit proportionality analysis — the route recommendation must assess and disclose whether the travel time benefit is proportionate to the irreversible harm of destroying a historic property whose owners have firmly refused to sell, enabling the state client to make an informed policy judgment about the trade-off.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Multi-Interest Route Selection Balancing Obligation; Historic Property Impact Assessment Standard; Disproportionate Impact on Property Owner Framework
Discovery that voluntary acquisition was not an option, narrowing the path forward
Potential creation of an adversarial dynamic if the owner perceived the visit as a precursor to condemnation
Obligation to be honest and objective in professional activities
Obligation to seek information necessary for a fully informed recommendation
Due diligence before recommending adverse state action
Gather firsthand information about the property owner's willingness to cooperate with the state's route plan and explore whether a voluntary resolution was possible
Obligation to balance interests of all relevant and affected parties
Ability to assess feasibility of voluntary acquisition
Professional judgment about when third-party interests must be surfaced to the client
Stakeholder communication and negotiation awareness
After route determination, before advising the state on how to proceed
Engineer A personally visits the historic farmhouse owner to discuss the proposed route, learning directly from the family that they have no interest in selling the property to the state or any other party.
Visit Farmhouse Owner Directly → Owner Refuses Land Sale
Engineer A personally visits the historic farmhouse owner to discuss the proposed route, learning directly of the owner's explicit refusal to sell the property, foreclosing voluntary acquisition
Without the direct visit, the refusal would not have been formally expressed at this stage, though the owner's underlying unwillingness would still exist; the conflict would have surfaced later through formal acquisition processes
Engineer A's decision to make direct personal contact with the owner
Honest disclosure of the route's impact on the owner's land during the visit
Owner's pre-existing attachment to and unwillingness to part with the historic property
Direct visit + honest disclosure of route impact + owner's strong attachment to property = explicit refusal
Withhold Unprompted Traffic Disclosure (BER 05-4)
Consulting Engineer retained by Developer F, BER Case 05-4
Perception of selective disclosure or advocacy rather than objective professional testimony
Planning Board members might make decisions without full information if other witnesses had not raised the traffic and pollution issues
Obligation to exercise professional judgment about the relevance and pertinence of information to disclose
Engineers may reach different ethical conclusions on the same facts
Honest and objective professional statements within the scope of engagement
Professional discretion in determining relevance of information for disclosure
Present the waterfront development project favorably and accurately within the scope of what was asked, while avoiding unsolicited disclosure of negative impacts that Engineer A judged to be outside the immediate scope of the presentation
Obligation to provide honest and accurate responses to questions asked
Environmental and traffic impact awareness
Professional judgment about disclosure obligations
Public hearing testimony and presentation
Circa 2005, during the public hearing referenced in the BER Case 05-4 discussion
Engineer A in BER Case 05-4 chose not to voluntarily disclose anticipated increases in traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution during a public hearing presentation, exercising professional judgment that these factors were not 'relevant and pertinent' absent a direct question from the Planning Board.
Withhold Unprompted Traffic Disclosure (BER 05-4) → Prior BER Cases Referenced
Engineer A in BER Case 05-4 chose not to voluntarily disclose anticipated increases in traffic, air quality, and related impacts, creating a contrasting ethical precedent that is introduced into the analysis alongside BER 79-2 to illuminate the disclosure obligations relevant to the road route case
Had Engineer A in BER 05-4 voluntarily disclosed, no ethical review of non-disclosure would have occurred and this specific precedent on disclosure boundaries would not exist
BER's formal review of that non-disclosure decision producing a ruling
Engineer A in BER 05-4 possessing knowledge of anticipated negative impacts
The deliberate decision not to disclose that knowledge without being prompted
The ruling's relevance to disclosure obligations in the current road route case
Knowledge of impacts + deliberate non-disclosure + BER formal review = precedent on limits of engineer disclosure obligations
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.82
The Board found that Engineer A's omission did not violate the completeness principle because the information was not, in Engineer A's professional judgment, relevant and pertinent — and because Engineer A would have answered truthfully if questioned
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
The faithful agent obligation is satisfied by diligent, complete route evaluation and honest presentation of all alternatives and their impacts — it does not require Engineer A to advocate for the shortest route or to recommend eminent domain as the preferred solution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.88
Completeness requires presenting all alternatives; the state retains ultimate decision authority over which route to select, but must receive complete information to exercise that authority meaningfully
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Condemnation is presented as the default under the greatest-good standard but not as the first resort — Engineer A must present creative alternatives before recommending condemnation
The greatest-good standard is applied as a default while the creative-alternative obligation operates as a constraint that must be satisfied before the default is recommended
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
The creative-alternative obligation supplements rather than replaces the faithful agent obligation — Engineer A serves the state's public purpose while also fulfilling the professional duty to minimize unnecessary harm through creative problem-solving
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Engineer A is constrained from accepting the binary framing of shortest-route-with-condemnation versus longer-route-without-condemnation as the only available options — before presenting the route recommendation, Engineer A must explore and present to the state client whether hybrid or partial alignment solutions exist that could capture some travel time savings while avoiding or minimizing harm to the historic farmhouse, prohibiting premature closure on an either/or route decision when creative engineering synthesis may reduce harm.
Engineer A should disclose the eminent domain option as legally available while presenting it in the context of a complete alternatives analysis that includes routes avoiding condemnation, enabling the state to make an informed decision about whether the travel time savings justify the human and historic preservation costs of condemnation
Engineer A's awareness of the eminent domain option creates an advisory obligation to disclose it to the state, but does not create an obligation to recommend it as the preferred approach — particularly when alternative routes exist and the property owner has clearly expressed unwillingness to sell a historic multi-generational family property
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.84
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Engineer A is constrained from either concealing the eminent domain option from the state client or unilaterally recommending its exercise without fully disclosing all material consequences — including the destruction of a 100-year-old historic family farmhouse, the owner's firm opposition to any sale, and the human and cultural significance of the property — and must present the eminent domain option as a governmental policy decision belonging exclusively to the state client rather than to the engineer.
Public welfare is served both by the road's construction and by minimizing unnecessary harm to the historic farmhouse owners; Engineer A must pursue both objectives simultaneously
Engineer A cannot recommend condemnation of the historic family farmhouse to the state client without first identifying, evaluating, and presenting all feasible creative alternative solutions — including physical relocation of the farmhouse — that could achieve the road connection objective while avoiding or minimizing harm to the historic property.
Multi-interest balancing requires Engineer A to present all relevant interests and trade-offs to the state, which retains ultimate decision authority — the engineer's role is to enable informed multi-value decision-making, not to resolve the value conflict unilaterally
The do-no-harm obligation operates as a constraint on the greatest-good standard, requiring Engineer A to minimize harm through creative alternatives before recommending the legally available but most harmful option
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.9
Engineer A cannot treat the greatest-good calculus as a mechanical override requiring condemnation recommendation without first exploring and presenting creative alternative solutions — such as physical relocation of the historic farmhouse — to the state client.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.89
The historic resource impact consideration does not override the public transportation need but requires Engineer A to exhaust creative alternatives before recommending condemnation
Engineer A must present the state with a recommendation that reflects genuine balancing of all interests, including creative alternatives that reduce harm to the farmhouse owners, rather than simply optimizing for the state's preferred outcome
The Board concluded that Engineer A's omission was not unethical because the public hearing process — with multiple witnesses — supplied the omitted information, and because Engineer A would have answered truthfully if questioned; the relevance standard does not authorize suppression of material safety findings
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.83
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.8
Honesty and professional judgment are aligned — Engineers A and B discharged their honesty obligation by exercising and standing behind their professional judgment in good faith
Professional judgment is validated as the appropriate arbiter when regulatory frameworks establish criteria but cannot resolve the specific trade-off; good-faith compliance with law and professional standards discharges the ethical obligation
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.82
Engineers A and B's compliance-based landfill redesign decision — incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes per state environmental laws — cannot be characterized as unethical merely because residual environmental risks (methane gas migration, groundwater contamination) remain, as professional judgment serves as the final arbiter of the best balance between society's landfill capacity needs and unavoidable environmental degradation.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.81
Proactive disclosure of the property acquisition risk serves the state client's interests by enabling informed route selection before significant design investment is made in a route that may face contested condemnation proceedings
Engineer A is constrained from substituting personal judgment about whether the state should exercise eminent domain for the state client's sovereign policy decision — the faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to present complete route information and consequences to the state client, enabling the client to make an informed decision, while refraining from either withholding the eminent domain option or unilaterally advocating for or against condemnation of the historic farmhouse in a manner that usurps the client's decision-making authority.
Engineer A is constrained from omitting or suppressing the farmhouse owner's expressed unwillingness to sell from the route recommendation report — having made direct personal contact with the owner and learned of the family's firm opposition to any sale, Engineer A must disclose this material fact to the state client as part of the complete comparative analysis of the shortest route alternative, even though eminent domain renders the owner's preference legally non-binding.
Engineer A must identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the farmhouse owner and historic property before recommending the shortest route that would require condemnation of an unwilling seller's 100-year-old fa
Engineer A must evaluate and disclose the historic significance of the 100-year-old family farmhouse as a dimension of the route selection analysis, present route alternatives that preserve the historic property, and advise the state that t
Engineer A must evaluate all route alternatives objectively, without allowing the technical elegance of the shortest route or the efficiency of the 30-minute travel time savings to bias the analysis against alternatives that, while longer,
Engineer A is obligated to identify and present to the state creative alternatives to condemnation of the historic farmhouse, including the possibility of physically relocating the farmhouse to another appropriate site, before recommending
Engineer A bears an obligation to balance the interests of all relevant parties — the state, the two towns, and the historic farmhouse owners — in specifying the road route, holding the public interest paramount while seeking solutions cons
Engineer A must identify, evaluate, and disclose the impact of the proposed road route on the historic multi-generational family farmhouse, and present route alternatives or mitigation measures — including physical relocation — that minimiz
Engineer A retained by the state to specify the road route must balance the competing interests of the state, the two towns served by the road, and the historic farmhouse owners — not optimizing solely for route efficiency or state client p
Engineer A must present the state with a complete analysis of all workable route alternatives — not merely the shortest route — including longer alternatives that avoid the historic farmhouse, with full comparative analysis of travel time,
Engineer A must inform the state of the legal availability of condemnation proceedings as a tool for acquiring the historic farmhouse property, while also presenting alternative solutions that might avoid condemnation — not recommending con
Engineer A proactively visited the farmhouse owner to ascertain the owner's position on the property acquisition, and must now proactively disclose to the state client the owner's clear unwillingness to sell and the resulting implications f
Engineer A's obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions for amicable resolution reflects the professional duty to minimize harm — specifically the harm of condemnation and displacement of the historic farmhouse owne
Engineer A must inform the state that eminent domain is legally available to acquire the farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting alternative routes that would avoid the need for condemnation, and advising the state
Engineer A, retained by JKL Engineering under a state contract to specify the road route, must diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting the two towns while independently evaluating all route alternatives and their imp
The Board applies the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number standard to the road routing decision, concluding that condemnation proceedings would generally be justified under that standard, while simultaneously requiring Engineer A to ident
Engineer A must conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that balances the competing interests of the traveling public (30-minute travel time savings), the farmhouse owner (preservation of historic multi-generational property a
Engineer A presenting the waterfront development design at the City X Planning Board hearing was not ethically required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution when not specifically questioned, because in
The question of whether Engineer A was required to volunteer information about traffic, air, and noise pollution at the public hearing implicates the completeness principle — the Board concluded that the relevance-and-pertinence standard bo
Engineers A and B acted ethically in designing the higher-contour landfill despite public controversy, because their professional judgment — applied within the framework of state environmental law — was the appropriate mechanism for resolvi
Engineers A and B were required to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with the public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design, including in their professional assessments of t
Engineer A must present the state with a complete analysis of all workable route alternatives — including the shortest route requiring condemnation of the historic farmhouse, longer routes avoiding the property, and creative hybrid alternat
Engineer A must inform the state that eminent domain is legally available as a mechanism to acquire the historic farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting the full consequences — including the owner's unwillingness to
Engineer A is obligated to fully disclose to the state client all material consequences of exercising eminent domain over the historic farmhouse — including the owner's expressed unwillingness to sell, the historic significance of the prope
Engineer A is obligated to identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic family farmhouse — which has existed for over 100 years — before recommending any route that would require condemnation or displa
Engineer A is obligated to present each workable route alternative completely and objectively to the state client decision-makers, including all advantages, disadvantages, long-term risks, cost tradeoffs, historic resource implications, and
Engineer A is obligated to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path route solutions — such as partial alignments that capture some travel time savings while avoiding the farmhouse footprint, or design modifications that reduce the
Engineer A is obligated to inform the state client that eminent domain is legally available to acquire the historic farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting the full consequences of exercising that authority — includ
Engineer A is obligated to balance the interests of all relevant parties — the state, the two towns, and the historic farmhouse owners — applying the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number standard while identifying creative alternative solu
Engineer A is obligated to diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently — including identifying the shortest workable route and its 30-minute travel time savings — while simultaneously fulfilling all
Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to the City X Planning Board hearing, and was not required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollut
Engineers A and B were obligated to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental concerns raised by the higher-contour design, recognizing that no f
Engineer A is obligated to advise the state on feasible and reasonable alternative solutions — including the option of physically relocating the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site — in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution
Engineers A and B were obligated to remain honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design, refraining from allowing Engineer C's public ch
Engineer A must diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently — including identifying the shortest workable route and its travel time benefits — while simultaneously fulfilling all overriding public w
Engineer A must conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that balances the competing interests of the traveling public (travel time savings), the historic farmhouse owners (displacement and loss of multi-generational family pro
Engineer A is obligated to disclose to the state client that the farmhouse owner has expressed that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else, as this is a material fact bearing on the feasibility of
Engineer A is obligated to present the state with a complete comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including the shortest route requiring eminent domain of the historic farmhouse, longer routes avoiding the property, and
Engineer A must identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic multi-generational family farmhouse before recommending a route that would require condemnation or displacement of that property, consistent
Engineer A, having proactively visited the farmhouse owner and learned of the owner's unwillingness to sell, is obligated to proactively disclose to the state client both the fact of the visit and the owner's expressed position — that the f
Engineer A is obligated to conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that explicitly balances the competing interests of the traveling public (30-minute travel time savings), the historic farmhouse owner (displacement and loss o
Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure Constraint Engineer A Historic Farmhouse
Engineer A is aware of the eminent domain option and must disclose it with full consequences while respecting that the decision to condemn is a sovereign governmental authority belonging to the state client, not to the engineer.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.4; Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure Obligation; Faithful Agent Route Specification State Contract Obligation
Engineer A Route Selection Amicable Resolution Creative Alternative Exhaustion
Engineer A retained by state to specify road route; shortest route requires condemnation of 100-year-old historic family farmhouse; owners have expressed unwillingness to sell; state has eminent domain authority but has not yet decided to exercise it
Amicable Resolution Creative Alternative Exhaustion Before Condemnation Recommendation Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis establishing amicable resolution advisory obligation
Prior to submission of final route recommendation to the state client
Engineer A Route Selection Greatest Good Non-Absolute Condemnation Preference
Engineer A retained by state to specify road route connecting two towns; shortest route requires condemnation of 100-year-old historic family farmhouse whose owners have expressed unwillingness to sell
Greatest Good Balancing Non-Absolute Condemnation Preference Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis establishing multi-interest balancing obligation and amicable resolution advisory duty
Throughout the route specification engagement, prior to submission of final route recommendation to the state
Engineers A and B Landfill Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality
Engineers A and B redesigned existing sanitary landfill to higher final contours per state environmental laws after town council could not locate alternate disposal site; Engineer C publicly contended the design was environmentally unsound due to methane gas and groundwater risks
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Finality Constraint
BER Case 79-2; NSPE Code of Ethics; State environmental laws governing landfill design
At the time of landfill redesign and throughout subsequent public controversy
In deciding that all professional engineers involved acted ethically, the Board noted that...
Faithful Agent Route Specification Non-Usurpation Constraint Engineer A State Client
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to the state client requires complete disclosure of all route options and consequences while respecting that the decision to exercise eminent domain is a governmental policy choice belonging to the state, not to the engineer.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; Faithful Agent Route Specification State Contract Obligation; BER Case 79-2
Historic Farmhouse Owner Unwillingness Non-Suppression Constraint Engineer A State Client
Engineer A proactively visited the farmhouse owner and learned of the family's firm opposition to any sale. This information is material to the state's informed decision about whether to exercise eminent domain and must be disclosed.
Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Non-Suppression Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Written Report Completeness Constraint; Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Hybrid Route Solution Exploration Constraint Engineer A JKL State
Engineer A has identified two route options but must explore whether hybrid alignments — such as partial routes that capture some travel time benefit while avoiding the farmhouse footprint — exist before presenting the binary choice to the state client.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint; Creative Third Path Solution Exploration Obligation
During route analysis and at the time of route recommendation submission
Competing Public Goods Landfill Capacity vs Environmental Protection
From the town council's request for higher-contour designs through the Board's ethical determination
The tension between the town's need for continued landfill capacity (a public good) and the environmental protection of adjacent properties and groundwater (another public good) in the landfill redesign decision
Board of Ethical Review determination that professional judgment governs the balance
the town council had sought an alternate disposal location, but had not been able to locate one
Exhaustion of existing landfill space combined with inability to locate an alternate disposal site, requiring higher-intensity use of the existing site despite foreseeable environmental risks
From completion of route analysis through formal presentation of alternatives to the state client
Engineer A's obligation to present complete route alternatives and their impacts to the state client, enabling informed decision-making, while refraining from unilaterally suppressing or advocating for any particular option
Formal presentation of all alternatives to the state client and client's informed decision
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain
Engineer A's completion of route analysis revealing the shortest-route/farmhouse conflict and the eminent domain option
Landfill Design Regulatory Compliance with Residual Environmental Risk
From acceptance of the higher-contour design through implementation and monitoring
Regulatory Compliance with Residual Environmental Risk State
Accepted landfill redesign complying with state environmental laws while presenting foreseeable methane gas and groundwater contamination risks
Not terminated within the case facts presented
This design would provide for a hill more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed
methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and pollute the nearby ground water
Town council acceptance of design incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes in accordance with state environmental laws, despite foreseeable residual environmental risks
Landfill Higher Contour Design Public Controversy
From public release of the accepted higher-contour design through resolution of community controversy
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and pollute the nearby ground water
Public Controversy Engineering Decision State
Engineers A and B's accepted landfill redesign incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes resulting in a hill more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed
Board of Ethical Review determination that all engineers acted ethically
The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy
Engineer C publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound due to methane gas migration and groundwater contamination
Waterfront Development Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment
During Engineer A's public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
Engineer A highlighted the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland
Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
Engineer A's presentation to City X Planning Board regarding Developer F's waterfront development project
Other witnesses testifying about traffic, noise, and air pollution issues at the same hearing
Engineer A's decision to highlight environmental benefits of the waterfront conversion without volunteering known traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts
Engineer A Route Selection Eminent Domain Availability Disclosure Present Case
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route; the shortest route requires acquisition of a historic family farmhouse; the Board notes that condemnation proceedings are a potential outcome under the greatest-good standard.
Engineer A (Route Selection Design Engineer, present case)
Engineer A must inform the state that eminent domain is legally available as a mechanism to acquire the historic farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting the full consequences — including the owner's unwillingness to sell, the historic significance of the property, and the availability of alternative routes — so that the state can make a fully informed decision about whether to exercise that legal authority.
While in general the Board is of the view that the rule in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail under the circumstances as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue.
During route specification and advisory process
Engineer A Waterfront Development Hearing Case
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 05-4'}
Retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project, required to attend and present the proposed design at a public hearing before the City Planning Board, highlighted environmental benefits while not volunteering information about increased traffic and pollution impacts.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer F Waterfront Development Client'}
{'type': 'regulatory', 'target': 'City X Planning Board'}
Engineer A was required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board
Do No Harm Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Route Recommendation
Evaluation of harm to farmhouse owner from shortest route selection
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Public Welfare Paramount (transportation efficiency dimension)
Engineer A must identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the farmhouse owner and historic property before recommending the shortest route that would require condemnation of an unwilling seller's 100-year-old family property, recognizing that causing unnecessary harm through professional recommendations violates the engineer's core ethical obligation
The farmhouse owner's clear and expressed unwillingness to sell creates a heightened harm consideration — condemnation of an unwilling seller's historic family property causes significant human harm beyond mere financial compensation. Engineer A's do-no-harm obligation requires presenting alternatives that avoid this harm before recommending the harm-causing option
Engineer A Route Selection Design Engineer
Do No Harm Obligation in Professional Engineering Services
the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.
Do no harm requires Engineer A to present harm-avoiding alternatives; it does not prohibit recommending the shortest route if the state determines the public benefit justifies the harm, but requires that the harm be fully disclosed and alternatives presented
Engineer A Route Selection Complete Comparative Analysis Present Case
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route; multiple route alternatives exist with different tradeoffs between travel time savings and historic property impacts.
Route Alternative Complete Comparative Analysis Obligation
Engineer A must present the state with a complete analysis of all workable route alternatives — including the shortest route requiring condemnation of the historic farmhouse, longer routes avoiding the property, and creative hybrid alternatives such as physical relocation — with a full comparative analysis of travel time savings, property impacts, historic resource consequences, cost, and public welfare tradeoffs.
there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue.
During route specification and advisory process, before final route recommendation
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Town Engineer', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
Served as the town engineer collaborating with Engineer B on sanitary landfill contour studies and redesigns, ultimately producing an accepted design with higher final contours incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Town Council'}
Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill
Engineer B Consulting Engineer Landfill Case
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'position': 'Consulting Engineer retained by town council', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 79-2'}
Served as a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborating with Engineer A on landfill contour studies and redesigns for the existing sanitary landfill site.
Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment
Historic Cultural Resource Impact Invoked By Engineer A Farmhouse Route
Advisory recommendation to state client on route alternatives
Route selection evaluation affecting 100-year-old historic family farmhouse
Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation and Limits
Engineer A must evaluate and disclose the historic significance of the 100-year-old family farmhouse as a dimension of the route selection analysis, present route alternatives that preserve the historic property, and advise the state that the irreplaceable loss of a multi-generational historic property constitutes a form of public harm that must be weighed against the transportation efficiency benefits of the shortest route
The farmhouse's 100-year history and its status as a multi-generational family property give it historic and cultural significance that extends beyond its monetary value as real property. Engineer A's public welfare obligation encompasses this historic dimension and requires it to be explicitly addressed in the route evaluation, not treated merely as a property acquisition challenge
Historic and Cultural Resource Impact Consideration in Infrastructure Engineering
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route.
Historic resource significance is a legitimate dimension of public welfare analysis that must be presented to the state alongside transportation efficiency metrics, enabling the state to make an informed decision that weighs all relevant values
Historic Farmhouse Eminent Domain Option
From identification of the farmhouse as a required acquisition through resolution of the acquisition question
the rule in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail under the circumstances as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings
State client's legal authority to condemn the historic family farmhouse after the owners refused voluntary sale
Not terminated within the case facts; Engineer A is still advising on alternatives
Property owners' refusal of voluntary sale combined with state's legal authority to exercise eminent domain for public infrastructure
From Engineer A's site visit and owner refusal through client decision on route selection
Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns
Engineer A's awareness that the state can exercise eminent domain over the historic farmhouse to enable the shortest route
Client decision to select an alternative route, exercise eminent domain, or abandon the shortest route option
the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip
Farmhouse owner's explicit refusal to sell combined with Engineer A's identification of the shortest route requiring the property
Creative Alternative Generation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Route Selection
Historic farmhouse displacement decision in road routing
Engineer A is obligated to identify and present to the state creative alternatives to condemnation of the historic farmhouse, including the possibility of physically relocating the farmhouse to another appropriate site, before recommending condemnation proceedings
Engineer A's professional obligation extends beyond identifying the technically optimal route to generating creative solutions — such as farmhouse relocation — that may achieve the public purpose while avoiding or mitigating the most severe impacts on the historic farmhouse owners
Creative Alternative Generation Obligation in Condemnation-Adjacent Scenarios
Engineer A Route Selection Amicable Resolution Advisory
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route; the shortest route requires condemnation of a historic family farmhouse; the Board identifies physical relocation as a potential creative alternative to condemnation.
Engineer A (Route Selection Design Engineer, retained by JKL Engineering under state contract)
Engineer A is obligated to advise the state on feasible and reasonable alternative solutions — including the option of physically relocating the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site — in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution consistent with the public interest, before condemnation proceedings are recommended or pursued.
During route specification and advisory process, prior to final route recommendation
Engineer A Route Selection Faithful Agent State Contract Present Case
Engineer A retained by JKL Engineering under a state contract to specify the road route connecting two towns; must balance faithful service to the state with obligations to all affected parties.
Engineer A must diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently — including identifying the shortest workable route and its travel time benefits — while simultaneously fulfilling all overriding public welfare, historic resource, and multi-interest balancing obligations, so that the faithful agent duty to the state client is discharged within the ethical limits imposed by the NSPE Code.
Throughout the duration of the state contract engagement
Engineer A Route Selection Multi-Interest Route Balancing Present Case
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route connecting two towns; the shortest route requires condemnation of a historic family farmhouse; the Board directs Engineer A to balance all relevant interests.
Engineer A must conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that balances the competing interests of the traveling public (travel time savings), the historic farmhouse owners (displacement and loss of multi-generational family property), the state client (cost, feasibility, and legal authority), and the general public (historic preservation), presenting the tradeoffs among these interests completely and objectively.
it is the Board of Ethical Review's position that Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse.
Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Disclosure Engineer A State Client
Engineer A proactively visited the farmhouse owner and learned of the owner's unwillingness to sell. This information is material to the state's route selection decision and must be communicated to the client.
Historic Property Owner Unwillingness Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose to the state client that the farmhouse owner has expressed that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else, as this is a material fact bearing on the feasibility of voluntary acquisition for the shortest route and on the route selection decision.
Promptly following the visit to the farmhouse owner and before or contemporaneously with submitting the route recommendation
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Route Selection
Road route specification decision affecting historic farmhouse
Multi-Interest Balancing in Public Infrastructure Route Selection
Engineer A bears an obligation to balance the interests of all relevant parties — the state, the two towns, and the historic farmhouse owners — in specifying the road route, holding the public interest paramount while seeking solutions consistent with the interests of the public
In this context, public welfare requires not simply maximizing road efficiency but balancing the aggregate public benefit of the road against the harm to the historic farmhouse owners, and seeking amicable resolutions consistent with the public interest
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse.
Relevance and Pertinence Standard Invoked by Engineer A Waterfront Hearing
Public hearing presentation of waterfront development design before City X Planning Board
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports
Engineer A presenting the waterfront development design at the City X Planning Board hearing was not ethically required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution when not specifically questioned, because in Engineer A's professional judgment those factors were not 'relevant and pertinent' — and other witnesses subsequently provided that information
The relevance and pertinence standard calibrates voluntary disclosure obligations at public hearings to the engineer's professional judgment about what information bears on the specific presentation — not all known adverse information must be volunteered absent questioning, provided the engineer would answer truthfully if asked
Relevance and Pertinence Standard for Voluntary Disclosure at Public Hearings
From Engineer A's route analysis through client selection of a route
Engineer A's identification of at least two route options — the shortest route (requiring farmhouse condemnation) and a longer alternative — with materially different profiles of efficiency, cost, third-party impact, and community harm
in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse
Engineer A's determination that the shortest workable route conflicts with the historic farmhouse, creating a choice between route efficiency and third-party impact avoidance
Historic and Cultural Resource Impact Consideration Invoked in Route Selection
Road route decision affecting historic farmhouse over 100 years old
Greatest Good Balancing Principle in Public Infrastructure Decisions
Engineer A must identify, evaluate, and disclose the impact of the proposed road route on the historic multi-generational family farmhouse, and present route alternatives or mitigation measures — including physical relocation — that minimize that impact
The historic farmhouse represents an irreplaceable cultural and family asset whose loss through condemnation constitutes a form of public harm beyond mere property displacement, triggering Engineer A's obligation to seek alternatives
the owners of the historic family farmhouse
Multi-Interest Balancing Invoked by Engineer A Route Selection Present Case
Road route specification decision connecting two towns
Engineer A retained by the state to specify the road route must balance the competing interests of the state, the two towns served by the road, and the historic farmhouse owners — not optimizing solely for route efficiency or state client preference
Multi-interest balancing in this context requires Engineer A to give weight to the historic farmhouse owners' interests and the preservation value of the property, alongside the public transportation benefit, in formulating the route recommendation
Objectivity Invoked By Engineer A Route Evaluation
Comparative analysis of shortest route versus alternatives
Engineer A must evaluate all route alternatives objectively, without allowing the technical elegance of the shortest route or the efficiency of the 30-minute travel time savings to bias the analysis against alternatives that, while longer, avoid the harm of condemning a historic family property — presenting the state with an objective comparative analysis rather than a recommendation pre-determined by technical optimization
Objectivity requires Engineer A to evaluate all route alternatives on their merits across multiple criteria — not merely travel time — and to present findings without bias toward the technically optimal solution when other values (historic preservation, harm minimization) are legitimately in play
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route.
Objectivity and completeness together require a multi-criteria analysis presented without pre-determined conclusions, enabling the state to make an informed decision
the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse
Engineer A has identified the shortest workable route (saving 30 minutes from a two-hour trip) but this route requires addressing the impact to a historic family farmhouse. The engineer must present all alternatives, not merely the shortest route.
Engineer A is obligated to present the state with a complete comparative analysis of all workable route alternatives — including the shortest route requiring eminent domain of the historic farmhouse, longer routes avoiding the property, and any hybrid alternatives — with full analysis of travel time savings, property impacts, historic resource consequences, cost, and public welfare tradeoffs, so that the state can make a fully informed route selection decision.
As part of the route specification deliverable under the state contract
Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked by Engineer A Waterfront Hearing
Public hearing presentation of waterfront development design
The question of whether Engineer A was required to volunteer information about traffic, air, and noise pollution at the public hearing implicates the completeness principle — the Board concluded that the relevance-and-pertinence standard bounded Engineer A's voluntary disclosure obligation in the public hearing context
In the public hearing context, the completeness principle is calibrated by the relevance-and-pertinence standard — not all known adverse information must be volunteered, but the engineer must not selectively suppress material findings to serve the client's interests
Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Route Selection
Road route decision involving historic farmhouse property acquisition
Engineer A must inform the state of the legal availability of condemnation proceedings as a tool for acquiring the historic farmhouse property, while also presenting alternative solutions that might avoid condemnation — not recommending condemnation as the first resort when creative alternatives exist
The eminent domain advisory obligation requires Engineer A to present condemnation as one option among alternatives, with the creative alternatives — such as farmhouse relocation — presented as potentially preferable approaches to amicable resolution
While in general the Board is of the view that the rule in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number should prevail under the circumstances as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there may be alternative creative solutions that might exist to address the issue
Engineer A Route Selection Historic Property Displacement Harm Minimization
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route; the shortest route requires condemnation of a historic family farmhouse over 100 years old; the Board identifies creative alternatives including physical relocation.
Engineer A must identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic multi-generational family farmhouse before recommending a route that would require condemnation or displacement of that property, consistent with the Do No Harm principle.
Farmhouse Owner Proactive Visit Disclosure Engineer A State Client
Engineer A took the proactive step of visiting the farmhouse owner before submitting the route recommendation. The information obtained — the owner's unwillingness to sell — is material to the state's route decision and must be proactively disclosed.
Engineer A, having proactively visited the farmhouse owner and learned of the owner's unwillingness to sell, is obligated to proactively disclose to the state client both the fact of the visit and the owner's expressed position — that the family has no interest in selling to the state or to anyone else — as this information is material to the state's assessment of the feasibility and consequences of the shortest route.
Promptly following the visit to the farmhouse owner
Engineer A faces a genuine conflict between the efficiency interest of the traveling public (shortest route saving 30 minutes) and the property and historic preservation interests of the farmhouse owner (unwilling to sell a 100-year-old family property). The engineer must balance these competing interests in the route analysis.
Engineer A is obligated to conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that explicitly balances the competing interests of the traveling public (30-minute travel time savings), the historic farmhouse owner (displacement and loss of multi-generational family property), the state client (cost, feasibility, and legal authority), and the general public (historic preservation), presenting the tradeoffs among these interests completely and objectively so that the state can make a policy decision informed by all affected interests.
Throughout the route analysis and specification process under the state contract
Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure Engineer A State Route
Engineer A knows that eminent domain is available but also knows the owner is unwilling to sell and that the property is a historic multi-generational family farmhouse. All of these consequences must be disclosed to the state before it decides whether to exercise eminent domain.
Eminent Domain Consequence Full Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to fully disclose to the state client all material consequences of exercising eminent domain over the historic farmhouse — including the owner's expressed unwillingness to sell, the historic significance of the property (over 100 years old, multi-generational family farmhouse), the legal process and cost of condemnation, the public welfare implications of displacing a historic resource, and the availability of alternative routes that would avoid condemnation — so that the state's decision to pursue or forgo eminent domain is fully informed.
Before or contemporaneously with submitting the route recommendation to the state client
Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter Invoked in Landfill Case
Higher-contour landfill design decision amid public controversy about methane and groundwater risks
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Resistance to Public Pressure on Safety Determinations
Engineers A and B acted ethically in designing the higher-contour landfill despite public controversy, because their professional judgment — applied within the framework of state environmental law — was the appropriate mechanism for resolving the trade-off between the community's waste disposal needs and the environmental risks raised by Engineer C
In the absence of a definitive regulatory answer to the environmental trade-off, professional engineering judgment exercised in good faith and in compliance with applicable law constitutes the ethical standard — public controversy does not retroactively render the judgment unethical
Professional Judgment as Final Arbiter in Environmental Trade-Off Decisions
despite these efforts professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
despite these efforts professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs
Completeness Advisory Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Route Alternatives
Presentation of route alternatives with comparative analysis
Route specification advisory recommendation to state client
Engineer A must present the state with a complete analysis of all workable route alternatives — not merely the shortest route — including longer alternatives that avoid the historic farmhouse, with full comparative analysis of travel time, property impacts, historic preservation implications, acquisition costs, and legal constraints
The state, as a non-engineer client, lacks independent capacity to evaluate whether Engineer A has presented all workable alternatives. Engineer A's obligation of completeness requires presenting all technically viable options — including those that sacrifice some travel time savings to avoid historic property condemnation — so the state can make a genuinely informed route selection decision
Engineer A Waterfront Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment
Engineer A retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project; required to present at a City X Planning Board hearing; aware of potential traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts but not specifically questioned about them.
Engineer A (Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer, waterfront development case)
Relevance and Pertinence Judgment Obligation at Public Hearings
Engineer A was obligated to exercise professional judgment about which information was relevant and pertinent to the City X Planning Board hearing, and was not required to volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution that Engineer A's professional judgment identified as not relevant and pertinent — provided Engineer A would have answered honestly if directly questioned.
During the public hearing presentation before the City X Planning Board
Engineer A was aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and did not volunteer this fact. Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues.
Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testified about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues.
Greatest Good Balancing Principle Invoked in Route Selection Case
Road route decision involving historic farmhouse condemnation
The Board applies the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number standard to the road routing decision, concluding that condemnation proceedings would generally be justified under that standard, while simultaneously requiring Engineer A to identify creative alternatives that might avoid condemnation
The greatest-good standard supports condemnation as a default, but professional engineering obligation requires Engineer A to identify creative alternatives — such as physically relocating the farmhouse — before recommending that default
Honesty Invoked by Engineers A and B Landfill Case
Higher-contour landfill design and public controversy response
Engineers A and B were required to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with the public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design, including in their professional assessments of the environmental trade-offs involved
Honesty in this context requires Engineers A and B to stand behind their professional judgments honestly and objectively, neither overstating nor understating the environmental risks, in the face of public controversy
professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities.
Multi-Interest Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Route Selection Analysis
Comparative evaluation of shortest route versus alternatives avoiding historic farmhouse
Route specification for road connecting two towns
Engineer A must conduct and present a multi-criteria route evaluation that balances the competing interests of the traveling public (30-minute travel time savings), the farmhouse owner (preservation of historic multi-generational property and respect for unwillingness to sell), the state client (cost-effective and legally defensible route selection), and the broader public (historic preservation and minimization of governmental coercion in property acquisition)
Route selection for public infrastructure is not a single-objective optimization problem. Engineer A's professional obligation requires presenting the state with a complete multi-criteria analysis that enables an informed decision balancing transportation efficiency, property rights, historic preservation, and legal and ethical constraints on governmental property acquisition
Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else.
Engineers A and B Landfill Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off
Engineers A and B designed a higher-contour landfill in response to town council direction; the design was challenged by Engineer C on environmental grounds; the Board found all engineers acted ethically.
Engineers A and B (Town Engineer and Consulting Engineer, landfill redesign case)
Professional Judgment Environmental Trade-Off Final Arbiter Obligation
Engineers A and B were obligated to apply professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between the town's need for landfill capacity and the environmental concerns raised by the higher-contour design, recognizing that no finite answer exists to such trade-offs and that their honest professional judgment — even when producing a controversial outcome — constituted ethical conduct.
there is no finite answer to the balance or 'trade-off' which is involved in the overall concerns about Case No. 79-2 environmental dangers for particular projects.
During the design process and throughout the public controversy
In deciding that all professional engineers involved acted ethically, the Board noted...
professional judgment will be the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.
Historic Farmhouse Multi-Party Interest Balancing
From Engineer A's engagement on the project through resolution of the farmhouse acquisition question
Multi-Party Interest Balancing with Creative Resolution Obligation State
Engineer A's advisory role to the state regarding a public infrastructure project requiring resolution of competing interests among the state, two towns, and owners of a historic family farmhouse
Not terminated within the case facts presented; Engineer A is obligated to continue exploring creative alternatives
Identification that the optimal engineering solution would require condemnation of a historic family farmhouse whose owners have refused voluntary sale
From Engineer A's identification of the shortest route through client decision on route alignment
historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route
Historic Resource Third-Party Impact State
The historic family farmhouse's presence on the land required for the shortest route, with owner opposition to any sale or transfer
Selection of an alternative route avoiding the farmhouse, or formal client decision to proceed with condemnation after full disclosure
Engineer A visits the farmhouse's owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling
Engineer A's determination that the shortest route requires land occupied by a 100-year-old family farmhouse whose owner refuses to sell
Historic Property Harm Minimization Engineer A Route Recommendation
The shortest workable route would require the state to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse. Engineer A must identify harm-minimizing alternatives before recommending a route that would displace this historic property.
Engineer A is obligated to identify and present route alternatives that avoid or minimize harm to the historic family farmhouse — which has existed for over 100 years — before recommending any route that would require condemnation or displacement of that property, consistent with the Do No Harm principle and historic resource impact consideration obligations.
During route analysis and before submitting route recommendation to the state client
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Farmhouse Owner Visit
Disclosure to state client of farmhouse owner's unwillingness to sell
Proactive identification of property acquisition risk in route selection
Engineer A proactively visited the farmhouse owner to ascertain the owner's position on the property acquisition, and must now proactively disclose to the state client the owner's clear unwillingness to sell and the resulting implications for route selection — including the risk that the shortest route will require contested condemnation proceedings with associated costs, delays, and public controversy
Engineer A's proactive visit to the farmhouse owner demonstrates the engineer's recognition that property acquisition feasibility is a material dimension of route selection. The owner's clear unwillingness to sell is a material risk that must be proactively disclosed to the state client, along with its implications for the viability and cost of the shortest route
Do No Harm Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Route Selection
Road route specification and advisory services to the state
Engineer A's obligation to advise the state on feasible and reasonable solutions for amicable resolution reflects the professional duty to minimize harm — specifically the harm of condemnation and displacement of the historic farmhouse owners — through the performance of engineering services
The do-no-harm obligation requires Engineer A to actively seek solutions that avoid or minimize the harm of condemnation, not merely to note that condemnation is legally available
Eminent Domain Advisory Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Farmhouse Condemnation
Engineer A's route recommendation to state client
State's decision whether to pursue shortest route requiring farmhouse condemnation or alternative routes
Engineer A must inform the state that eminent domain is legally available to acquire the farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting alternative routes that would avoid the need for condemnation, and advising the state of the human, historic preservation, and legal dimensions of the condemnation option — particularly given the farmhouse owner's clear and expressed unwillingness to sell
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked By Engineer A State Contract
Route evaluation and recommendation to state client
State contract to specify route for road connecting two towns
Engineer A, retained by JKL Engineering under a state contract to specify the road route, must diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting the two towns while independently evaluating all route alternatives and their impacts, and must not suppress material information about property impacts or recommend ethically impermissible approaches to property acquisition
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation requires diligent execution of the route evaluation assignment for the state, including proactive investigation of property impacts (as demonstrated by the farmhouse visit), while retaining independent professional judgment about how to present findings and what alternatives to recommend
Engineer A is a professional engineer with JKL Engineering. JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns.
Creative Third Path Solution Exploration Engineer A Route
The case presents an apparent binary choice between the shortest route (displacing the historic farmhouse) and longer routes (avoiding it). Engineer A should explore whether creative hybrid solutions exist that partially resolve the tension between travel time efficiency and historic property preservation.
Creative Third-Path Solution Exploration Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path route solutions — such as partial alignments that capture some travel time savings while avoiding the farmhouse footprint, or design modifications that reduce the farmhouse impact — rather than limiting analysis to a binary choice between the shortest route (requiring full condemnation) and longer routes (forgoing all time savings), consistent with the engineer's role as a trustee applying full professional knowledge and creativity to the client's problem.
Engineers A and B Landfill Public Controversy Honest Objectivity
Engineers A and B designed a higher-contour landfill accepted by the town council; Engineer C publicly contended the design was environmentally unsound; the issue stirred considerable local publicity and controversy.
Engineers A and B were obligated to remain honest and objective in their professional statements and activities when confronted with public controversy over the higher-contour landfill design, refraining from allowing Engineer C's public challenge or community sentiment to distort their professional analysis.
When confronted with such situations, professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities.
Throughout the public controversy period following acceptance of the higher-contour design
In deciding that all professional engineers involved acted ethically, the Board noted that 'there is no finite answer to the balance or trade-off which is involved in the overall concerns about Case No. 79-2 environmental dangers for particular projects.'
Farmhouse Owner Refusal — Third-Party Property Rights
From Engineer A's site visit through formal disclosure to the state client
The risk that proceeding with the shortest route without full disclosure of the owner's opposition and the historic significance of the farmhouse could result in uninformed client decision-making and unnecessary harm to third parties
Engineer A's complete disclosure to the state client of owner opposition, historic significance, route alternatives, and eminent domain implications
Farmhouse owner's explicit refusal to sell and Engineer A's awareness of the eminent domain option without yet having disclosed the full situation to the client
Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Engineer A Route
Engineer A has identified at minimum two categories of route alternatives: the shortest route (saving 30 minutes but requiring displacement of a historic farmhouse) and longer routes (avoiding the farmhouse but adding travel time). Both must be presented completely and objectively.
Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to present each workable route alternative completely and objectively to the state client decision-makers, including all advantages, disadvantages, long-term risks, cost tradeoffs, historic resource implications, and disproportionate impact considerations — specifically including the travel time savings of the shortest route, the historic property displacement consequences, and the availability of longer routes avoiding the farmhouse — so that decision-makers can make a fully informed choice among the alternatives.
Engineer A has identified that the shortest workable route would require the state to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse, and is aware that eminent domain is available as a legal mechanism. The owner has expressed unwillingness to sell.
Engineer A is obligated to inform the state client that eminent domain is legally available to acquire the historic farmhouse property for the shortest route, while also presenting the full consequences of exercising that authority — including the owner's unwillingness to sell, the historic significance of the property, and the availability of alternative routes — so that the state can make a fully informed decision about whether to pursue eminent domain or an alternative route.
Upon completion of route analysis and before submitting route recommendation to the state client
Engineer A Route Selection Greatest Good Multi-Interest Balancing
Engineer A retained by the state to specify a road route connecting two towns; the shortest workable route requires condemnation of a historic multi-generational family farmhouse whose owners are unwilling to sell.
Greatest Good Multi-Interest Balancing Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to balance the interests of all relevant parties — the state, the two towns, and the historic farmhouse owners — applying the greatest-good-for-the-greatest-number standard while identifying creative alternative solutions such as physical relocation of the historic farmhouse, so that the state can make a fully informed route selection decision.
During route specification and advisory process, before final route recommendation is submitted to the state
Faithful Agent Route Specification Engineer A JKL State Contract
Engineer A is retained by JKL Engineering under a state contract to specify the road route. The faithful agent duty requires serving the state's efficiency objective, but this duty is bounded by the ethical obligations to disclose historic resource impacts, present all alternatives, and balance competing interests.
Faithful Agent Route Specification State Contract Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to diligently serve the state's legitimate objective of connecting two towns efficiently — including identifying the shortest workable route and its 30-minute travel time savings — while simultaneously fulfilling all overriding public welfare, historic resource, and multi-interest balancing obligations, so that the faithful agent duty to the state client is discharged within the ethical limits imposed by the NSPE Code.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'employer': 'JKL Engineering', 'specialty': 'Transportation route alignment and road design', 'contract_type': 'State contract for route specification'}
Engineer A is retained by JKL Engineering under a state contract to specify the route for a new road connecting two towns. Engineer A identifies the shortest workable route, determines it would require addressing a historic farmhouse, visits the property owner who refuses to sell, and is aware of the eminent domain option available to the state.
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'JKL Engineering'}
{'type': 'engaged_with', 'target': 'Farmhouse Owner (Historic Property Owner Stakeholder)'}
{'type': 'retained_by', 'target': 'State (Transportation Infrastructure Client)'}