NSPE professional ethics deliberative tradition
Agent-Trustee Distinction in Engineering Professional Obligations
Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation.
Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client's agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to resolve the tension between completing the assigned task and advocating for sustainable alternatives
Applied to distinguish between Wasser and Cutting Edge's role as faithful agents (required to complete the accepted irrigation task if client insists) versus faithful trustees (proactively sharing sustainable alternatives with the client to serve their best interests)
engineer intern, Cutting Edge Engineering
Career consequences as a new employee refusing a supervisor's assignment
Possible reassignment of the task to another engineer, not preventing the harm but only removing personal complicity
Potential disruption to project schedule and client relationship
Risk of being perceived as overstepping intern authority
NSPE Code III.2.d: acting consistent with sustainable development principles by refusing to advance a design with documented environmental harm
Personal ethical integrity and conscience
Post-2007 BER Case 07-6 standard: proactively surfacing known environmental threat rather than omitting it
Public welfare protection (NSPE Code I.1), water table preservation affects broader community
Individual professional conscience and right to ethical dissent
Post-2007 BER precedent requiring proactive environmental disclosure
Public welfare over private interest (NSPE Code I.1)
Sustainable development (NSPE Code III.2.d)
UN Sustainable Development Goals as external ethical reference
Prevent personal participation in designing a system he believed would cause long-term environmental harm, and prompt the firm and client to reconsider the irrigation approach
Ability to read and interpret hydrogeological study findings
Familiarity with UN Sustainable Development Goals
Knowledge of NSPE Code of Ethics including III.2.d
Professional courage to formally dissent from supervisory direction
Technical competence to perform the refused task (refusal was ethical, not capability-based)
Present case, design phase, immediately following Jaylani's task assignment
Contractual obligations of the firm (by extension), refusal creates delivery risk
NSPE Code I.4: faithful agent obligation to employer, refusal of a direct supervisory assignment undermines the employer relationship
Professional norms of intern deference to supervising engineers
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to complete the irrigation system sketching task assigned by Jaylani, citing findings from a recent hydrogeological study indicating the proposed irrigation system would lower the regional water table. This was a deliberate act of professional dissent rather than inability to perform the technical work.
Assigned Task Refusal → Formal Sustainability Memorandum Submission
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to complete the irrigation system sketching task assigned by Jaylani, [and subsequently] submitted a formal written memorandum to Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering [documenting his sustainability objections]
Had Wasser refused verbally but not known about or chosen to use formal memorandum procedures, the written record would not exist; had he not refused at all, no memorandum would have been submitted
Formal Sustainability Memorandum Submission
BER precedent cases establishing the legitimacy of written objection by engineers
Wasser's decision to escalate beyond verbal refusal to formal written documentation
Wasser's initial refusal to complete the assigned task
Wasser's knowledge of NSPE Code provisions supporting formal dissent
Task refusal + NSPE dissent provisions + BER precedent + Wasser's professional judgment = formal memorandum submission
The refusal alone was insufficient; Wasser's knowledge of formal dissent mechanisms was required to convert refusal into documented memorandum
BER Case 05-04 and BER Case 07-6 precedents before present case analysis and BER recommendation
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER's perspective... Turning to the present case, the project's landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind.
BER Case 05-04 and BER Case 07-6 precedents
present case analysis and BER recommendation
Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6, the BER's first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
BER Case 05-04 before addition of sustainable development provision III.2.d (July 2007)
BER Case 05-04, written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER's earlier perspective on environmental sustainability.
addition of sustainable development provision III.2.d (July 2007)
In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that 'environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to illustrate the evolution of sustainability ethics in engineering
Cited as representative of the BER's pre-sustainable development provision perspective, where individual professional judgment was the final arbiter of environmental trade-offs and engineers were not required to volunteer environmental impact information unless deemed relevant and pertinent
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER's perspective... In BER Case 15-12, Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering... [presented as a later, more evolved case]
Interpretive landscape enriched; present-day actors have access to BER reasoning that informs how code provisions apply to situations like Wasser's; the precedent cases make the ethical analysis more nuanced and less discretionary
The Board of Ethical Review issued relevant precedent decisions in Cases 05-04 (2005), 07-6 (2007), and 15-12 (2015), collectively establishing evolving interpretive standards for how engineers should handle sustainability concerns, dissent, and professional obligations in complex project contexts.
CausalLink_Formal Sustainability Memorand
CausalLink_Irrigation Sketching Task Assi
It was ethical for Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task.
Beyond the Board's finding that it was ethical for Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task, the acceptance carried with it an independent and affirmative obligation to disclose the hydrogeological study's documented water table depletion risk to the Resort Development Client before or concurrent with proceeding with the design. The faithful agent and trustee duty under NSPE Code Section I.4 does not merely require execution of the contracted scope; it requires that the client be equipped with material technical information bearing on the project's consequences. A hydrogeological study documenting measurable water table lowering in a semi-arid region constitutes precisely such material information. Acceptance of the task without disclosure of that risk reduced the client's ability to make an informed decision about the irrigation specification, and that omission represents an ethical gap the Board did not address. Engineer Jaylani's acceptance was therefore conditional on a disclosure obligation that the Board's conclusion left implicit but should have made explicit.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer Jaylani's acceptance was ethical implicitly rests on the premise that the landscape architect's specification authority relieves the MEP engineer of responsibility for the environmental consequences of executing that specification. This premise is ethically incomplete. While the landscape architect holds the design authority to specify the irrigation system type, Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering retain an independent professional duty to evaluate and communicate risks that fall within their own technical competence — including water resource engineering in a semi-arid context. Deference to another discipline's specification authority is a legitimate procedural boundary, but it cannot function as an ethical shield against disclosing known environmental risks. The MEP engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public under Canon I operates independently of interdisciplinary scope boundaries. Accordingly, the Board should have clarified that acceptance of the task was ethical only insofar as it was accompanied by Jaylani's independent evaluation of the water table risk and communication of that risk to the client, regardless of the landscape architect's specification role.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer Jaylani's acceptance was ethical does not adequately account for the semi-arid regional context as an ethically aggravating factor. A traditional lawn irrigation system specified for a golf course in a water-abundant region presents a materially different ethical profile than the same system specified in a semi-arid region where a hydrogeological study has documented water table depletion affecting communities dependent on that resource. The geographic and hydrological context elevates the public welfare stakes beyond a routine MEP design task. The Board's failure to condition its ethical approval on the regional context risks establishing a precedent that treats all traditional irrigation system acceptances as equally permissible regardless of documented environmental harm to third-party communities. A more complete analysis would have recognized that the semi-arid context and the documented impact on historically underserved regional water users strengthens the case for proactive client disclosure, sustainable alternative advocacy, and — at a sufficiently severe threshold of documented harm — potential escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities.
The Board's characterization of Engineer Intern Wasser's refusal as ethically permissible but 'extreme' reflects a proportionality judgment that deserves further unpacking. The Board appears to reason that because NSPE Code Section III.2.d frames sustainable development adherence as encouraged rather than mandatory, outright refusal of an assigned task on sustainability grounds exceeds what the code requires and therefore constitutes a disproportionate response. This reasoning is sound as far as it goes, but it does not fully engage with the question of whether Wasser's refusal was the most professionally effective response available. From a virtue ethics standpoint, practical wisdom — the capacity to identify the right action in context — would likely have counseled Wasser to complete the assigned sketching task while simultaneously submitting the sustainability memorandum and developing a concrete sustainable alternative design for presentation to Jaylani and ultimately to the client. This approach would have preserved Wasser's advocacy, demonstrated technical competence, and kept the client's choice space open without the professional friction of a subordinate task refusal. The Board's 'extreme' characterization implicitly endorses this alternative path without articulating it, and a more complete analysis would have made that preferred course of action explicit.
The Board's conclusion that Wasser's refusal was ethically permissible as a matter of personal conviction does not resolve whether Wasser's formal memorandum, standing alone, constituted a sufficient discharge of the professional obligation triggered by the hydrogeological study's findings. The memorandum addressed Jaylani internally, but the hydrogeological study documented a risk to communities dependent on the regional water table — a third-party public harm that extends beyond the firm's internal hierarchy. NSPE Code Canon I's paramount public welfare obligation and the reporting provision under Section II.1.f collectively suggest that when an engineer possesses knowledge of a condition that endangers public welfare, the obligation may extend beyond internal advocacy to notification of appropriate external authorities if internal channels fail to produce corrective action. The Board did not address whether Wasser's internal memorandum exhausted that obligation or whether — particularly given the semi-arid context and documented community water dependency — a stronger escalation duty existed. A complete analysis would have assessed whether the severity of the documented harm crossed the threshold at which internal dissent becomes insufficient and external reporting becomes obligatory.
The Board's implicit conclusion that traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work — left as 'unknown' in the explicit conclusions — is most defensible when read narrowly: the design task is not inherently unethical, but its ethical permissibility is contingent on the engineer fulfilling accompanying disclosure and advocacy obligations rather than treating permissibility as unconditional. The NSPE Code's framing of sustainable development adherence as 'encouraged' rather than mandatory in Section III.2.d does not create a genuine ethical loophole that permits engineers to proceed with designs carrying documented environmental harm without further obligation. Canon I's paramount public welfare duty operates as an independent and binding constraint that can impose affirmative obligations even where a specific code provision is permissive. Accordingly, the ethical permissibility of the traditional irrigation design is best understood as conditional: it is ethical to execute the design provided the engineer has disclosed the documented water table risk to the client, offered sustainable alternatives where technically feasible, and ensured the client's decision to proceed is informed. An unconditional finding that the design is an ethical expression of engineering work, without these conditions, would underweight the public welfare dimension that Canon I independently imposes.
Even accepting that the traditional irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work, the Board's implicit suggestion that Cutting Edge Engineering can complete the design by reassigning the task to another engineer or completing it through Jaylani directly does not fully resolve the firm's ethical posture going forward. The firm's most ethically complete path to task completion is not merely substituting a willing engineer for a dissenting one, but rather integrating Wasser's documented sustainability objection into the firm's client communication. Specifically, Cutting Edge Engineering should present the Resort Development Client with the hydrogeological study's findings, the sustainability concerns Wasser raised, and a developed sustainable irrigation alternative — such as a drip irrigation or greywater recycling system — alongside the traditional design, so that the client's decision to proceed with the traditional system is fully informed. This approach honors the faithful agent obligation to the client, respects the client's ultimate decision-making authority within legal bounds, satisfies the proactive risk disclosure duty triggered by the hydrogeological study, and transforms Wasser's internal dissent into a constructive client-facing advisory function. Completing the design without this client communication would be ethically deficient even if the design task itself is permissible.
As a matter of personal conviction, it was ethically permissible, but extreme, for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system.
In response to Q101: Engineer Jaylani bore an independent obligation to disclose the hydrogeological study's findings to the Resort Development Client before proceeding with the irrigation design, regardless of Wasser's objection. NSPE Code III.1.b directs engineers to advise clients when they believe a project will not be successful, and the hydrogeological study constitutes documented technical evidence — within the MEP engineer's competence to evaluate — that the proposed irrigation system poses a measurable risk to regional water resources. The landscape architect's role as specifier does not transfer this disclosure duty away from Jaylani; an MEP engineer who possesses knowledge of a documented environmental risk falling within their technical domain retains an independent obligation to surface that risk to the client. Accepting the task without first communicating the study's findings denied the Resort Development Client a meaningful opportunity to make an informed decision about the irrigation scope, which falls short of the faithful agent and trustee standard under Code I.4. The Board's conclusion that acceptance was ethical is not necessarily wrong, but it is incomplete unless disclosure of the water table risk is treated as a condition precedent to ethically proceeding.
In response to Q102: The landscape architect's authority to specify the irrigation system does not relieve Cutting Edge Engineering or Engineer Jaylani of independent professional responsibility for the environmental consequences of executing that specification. The NSPE Code's paramount public welfare obligation under Canon I operates across disciplinary boundaries; it does not yield simply because another licensed professional initiated the design decision. When an MEP engineer possesses technical knowledge — here, the hydrogeological study's findings — that a specified system will cause measurable harm to a shared natural resource in a semi-arid region, deference to the specifying discipline's authority is not a sufficient ethical defense. The engineer's role as faithful agent under I.4 is bounded by the public welfare paramount principle under I.1, meaning Jaylani's firm retained an affirmative duty to evaluate the irrigation specification against known environmental data and to flag sustainability risks that fell squarely within their technical competence, irrespective of who originated the specification.
In response to Q103: Wasser's formal memorandum was a necessary but likely insufficient response given the severity of the documented environmental risk. The hydrogeological study's findings about water table depletion in a semi-arid region — a resource upon which surrounding communities depend — elevate the concern beyond a routine internal sustainability disagreement. NSPE Code II.1.f directs engineers with knowledge of potential code violations to report to appropriate professional bodies, and Code I.1 frames public safety, health, and welfare as paramount. While the Board characterized Wasser's refusal as permissible but extreme, the internal memorandum alone may not satisfy the full scope of Wasser's professional obligations if the water table risk rises to the level of a genuine public welfare threat. A more proportionate and complete response would have included completing the assigned task under protest — thereby preserving the employment relationship and demonstrating good faith — while simultaneously escalating the documented risk through appropriate channels, potentially including regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over water resources in the semi-arid region. The Board's framing of the refusal as 'extreme' implicitly acknowledges that the chosen response was disproportionate relative to the available alternatives, but the Board did not address whether escalation beyond the firm was warranted.
In response to Q104: The semi-arid regional context and the documented impact on communities dependent on the water table materially elevate the ethical stakes of the traditional irrigation system design. A traditional lawn irrigation system specified for a golf course in a humid region would present a categorically different ethical profile than the same system deployed in a semi-arid region where a hydrogeological study has documented measurable water table depletion affecting surrounding communities. The geographic and hydrological context is not ethically neutral. Under Canon I's paramount public welfare obligation, the relevant question is not merely whether the design is technically permissible or legally authorized, but whether its foreseeable consequences endanger the health and welfare of the public — including communities beyond the resort's property boundary who depend on the shared aquifer. The Board's conclusion that traditional irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work may be defensible as a general proposition, but its application to this specific semi-arid context, with documented third-party water access impacts, requires a more demanding ethical justification than the Board explicitly provided.
In response to Q201: The client loyalty obligation and the public welfare paramount principle exist in genuine tension in this case, and the threshold at which public welfare overrides faithful client service is not merely a matter of degree but of documented harm to identifiable third parties. Code I.4 requires engineers to act as faithful agents and trustees, but this obligation is explicitly bounded by the paramount duty under I.1. The hydrogeological study provides the critical evidentiary threshold: it moves the water table depletion concern from speculative environmental worry to documented, foreseeable harm. Once that threshold is crossed — that is, once an engineer possesses credible technical evidence that a client's project will harm the public — the faithful agent role cannot ethically be used to suppress or ignore that evidence. The client loyalty obligation does not dissolve, but it must be discharged in a manner consistent with the public welfare duty, meaning at minimum that the client must be informed of the documented risk and given the opportunity to choose a less harmful alternative before the engineer proceeds with the original scope.
In response to Q202: Deference to another discipline's specification authority cannot ethically excuse an engineer from disclosing known environmental risks that fall within the engineer's own technical knowledge. The professional scope boundary between the landscape architect's specification role and the MEP engineer's execution role governs the division of design responsibility, but it does not govern the disclosure of known risks. These are distinct professional obligations. An MEP engineer who possesses a hydrogeological study demonstrating that a specified system will deplete a regional water table is not relieved of the duty to communicate that finding simply because the specification originated with a landscape architect. Code III.1.b and the broader faithful agent and public welfare obligations operate independently of who authored the design decision. Allowing disciplinary deference to function as a shield against risk disclosure would create a systematic ethical gap in multi-disciplinary projects — precisely the contexts where complex environmental risks are most likely to emerge across professional boundaries.
In response to Q203: The tension between the sustainable development advocacy principle and the client loyalty obligation is real but resolvable without treating them as mutually exclusive. Code III.2.d frames sustainable development adherence as encouraged rather than mandatory, which means Wasser's invocation of that provision alone cannot generate a binding obligation to refuse the task or to override the client's design preference. However, the ethical analysis changes when the sustainability concern is grounded not merely in aspirational SDG alignment but in a documented hydrogeological study demonstrating measurable harm. At that point, the concern migrates from the permissive domain of III.2.d into the mandatory domain of Canon I's public welfare paramount obligation. The non-mandatory character of III.2.d does not create a loophole that permits engineers to proceed with designs carrying documented environmental harm; rather, it means that the sustainability principle alone is insufficient to override client loyalty, but the public welfare paramount principle — triggered by documented third-party harm — is sufficient and is mandatory. Wasser conflated these two distinct normative sources, which weakened the ethical force of his objection even though the underlying concern was legitimate.
In response to Q204: Offering green irrigation alternatives as an add-on service is ethically insufficient if the baseline traditional design is already documented to cause measurable environmental harm and that documentation has not been disclosed to the client. The proactive design alternatives obligation on Jaylani and Cutting Edge is not satisfied by merely presenting sustainable options as an upsell; it must be paired with transparent disclosure of the documented risk associated with the traditional system. Without that disclosure, the client cannot make a genuinely informed choice between alternatives, and the engineer's stewardship duty — grounded in both the public welfare paramount obligation and the faithful agent role — is only partially fulfilled. Environmental stewardship in this context requires that the client understand not just that a greener option exists, but why the baseline option poses a documented risk to regional water resources. Presenting alternatives without disclosing the hydrogeological study's findings would satisfy the letter of a proactive alternatives obligation while undermining its ethical purpose.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer Jaylani's duty to disclose the hydrogeological study's findings to the Resort Development Client is not contingent on whether the traditional irrigation system design was otherwise permissible. Deontological ethics grounds obligations in the nature of the duty itself, not in its consequences. The duty to inform a client of known material risks — embedded in Code I.4's faithful agent and trustee standard and Code III.1.b's advisement obligation — is categorical: it applies whenever the engineer possesses relevant technical knowledge that the client needs to make an informed decision. The permissibility of the design task is a separate question from the completeness of the client relationship. Jaylani could ethically accept the task and simultaneously be obligated to disclose the water table risk; these are not mutually exclusive. The Board's conclusion that acceptance was ethical does not resolve whether the acceptance was accompanied by the disclosure that deontological duty required.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's conclusion that traditional irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work does not appear to have adequately weighed the long-term harm to historically underserved communities in the semi-arid region who depend on the water table the system risks depleting. A consequentialist analysis requires aggregating all foreseeable outcomes across all affected parties, not merely the immediate parties to the contract. The resort client's interest in a traditional golf course irrigation system is a near-term, localized benefit. The water table depletion documented in the hydrogeological study represents a diffuse, long-term harm distributed across communities that may lack the political or economic resources to seek redress. Consequentialist ethics would assign significant moral weight to this asymmetry — particularly where the harmed parties are historically underserved and the harm is irreversible or difficult to remediate. The Board's conclusion, if it rests on a consequentialist foundation, requires a more explicit accounting of these third-party harms before it can be considered complete.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer Intern Wasser's outright refusal reflects an admirable commitment to environmental stewardship but falls short of the practical wisdom — phronesis — that virtue ethics identifies as the hallmark of genuinely virtuous professional conduct. Practical wisdom requires not merely identifying the right value but choosing the right action in the right measure at the right time. A practically wise engineer intern, confronted with a legitimate sustainability concern, would recognize that completing the assigned task while simultaneously advocating forcefully for sustainable alternatives — and escalating through appropriate channels — better serves both the environmental goal and the professional relationship than outright refusal. The Board's characterization of the refusal as 'extreme' is best understood as a judgment about this proportionality: Wasser's underlying values were sound, but the chosen expression of those values was not calibrated to the situation. Virtue ethics would also note that the refusal, by removing Wasser from the design process, may have reduced rather than increased the likelihood of a sustainable outcome, since Wasser's technical knowledge and advocacy could have been more influential from within the project than from outside it.
In response to Q304: The NSPE Code's framing of sustainable development adherence as 'encouraged' rather than mandatory in III.2.d does not create a genuine ethical loophole that permits engineers to proceed with designs carrying documented environmental harm. The permissive language of III.2.d operates within the broader normative architecture of the Code, which places the paramount public welfare obligation of Canon I at the apex of the hierarchy. When a design carries documented, foreseeable harm to public health and welfare — as evidenced by the hydrogeological study's findings — the mandatory Canon I obligation is triggered independently of III.2.d. The 'encouraged' language means that sustainability advocacy, SDG alignment, and green design preferences are not independently enforceable professional obligations; but it does not mean that engineers may ignore documented evidence of public harm simply because that harm is framed in sustainability terms. The ethical loophole concern is therefore real but narrower than it appears: III.2.d cannot independently compel refusal of a legal design task, but Canon I can and does compel disclosure of documented public harm regardless of whether the harm is characterized as a sustainability issue.
In response to Q401: The Board's ethical assessment of Wasser's refusal would very likely have differed — and been more favorable to Wasser — if Wasser had first completed the assigned irrigation sketching task and then submitted the sustainability memorandum alongside a fully developed sustainable alternative design. The Board's characterization of the refusal as 'extreme' rests implicitly on the availability of less disruptive alternatives that would have preserved both the professional relationship and the sustainability advocacy. Completing the task under protest while simultaneously presenting a credible sustainable alternative would have demonstrated practical wisdom, good faith toward the employer, and a constructive rather than obstructive approach to the environmental concern. It would also have given the Resort Development Client a concrete choice between the traditional and sustainable options, which is the outcome the Board appears to favor. The outright pre-task refusal foreclosed this possibility and shifted the ethical burden onto Wasser in a way that completing the task first would not have.
In response to Q402: If Engineer Jaylani had proactively disclosed the hydrogeological study's water table findings to the Resort Development Client before accepting the irrigation design task, the client would have had a meaningful opportunity to make an informed decision — and this disclosure would have strengthened, not undermined, the ethical basis for accepting the task. The Board's conclusion that acceptance was ethical is most defensible when read as implicitly assuming that such disclosure either occurred or would occur. Without disclosure, the acceptance is ethically incomplete because the client's apparent consent to the traditional irrigation scope was not informed consent in the full professional sense. Proactive disclosure would also have positioned Cutting Edge Engineering to present sustainable alternatives from a position of technical credibility rather than as a reactive accommodation to Wasser's objection. Whether the client would have chosen a sustainable alternative is unknowable, but the ethical obligation to disclose does not depend on the predicted outcome of that disclosure — it depends on the client's right to make an informed decision.
In response to Q403: If the hydrogeological study had concluded that the proposed irrigation system would render the regional water supply unsafe for surrounding communities — rather than merely lower the water table — that escalation of public harm would almost certainly have converted Engineer Jaylani's acceptance of the task from ethical to unethical, and would have made Wasser's refusal not merely permissible but obligatory. Canon I's paramount public welfare obligation is most clearly triggered when the harm is not merely environmental degradation but a direct threat to public health and safety. Code II.1.a directs engineers whose judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property to notify appropriate authorities. At the threshold of unsafe water supply for surrounding communities, the faithful agent obligation under I.4 would be fully subordinated to the public welfare paramount obligation under I.1, and both Jaylani and Wasser would face binding duties to refuse the scope, notify the client of the specific safety risk, and if necessary escalate to regulatory authorities. The current case sits below this threshold — the study documents water table depletion, not unsafe water supply — but the proximity of the facts to this threshold reinforces the argument that disclosure to the client was at minimum obligatory even under the actual facts.
In response to Q404: If Cutting Edge Engineering had proactively introduced green irrigation alternatives to the Resort Development Client at the outset and the client had still insisted on the traditional system, the firm's ethical obligations would have intensified in two respects. First, the firm would bear a stronger obligation to ensure that the client's insistence was documented as an informed decision made with full knowledge of the hydrogeological study's findings — not merely a preference expressed without awareness of the environmental consequences. Second, if the documented water table depletion risk rises to the level of a public welfare concern under Canon I, client insistence on the traditional system after full disclosure would not relieve the firm of its public welfare obligation; it would instead require the firm to evaluate whether proceeding with the scope is consistent with its paramount duty. The Board's suggestion that Cutting Edge is well-positioned to offer green alternatives implies that this proactive introduction is the preferred ethical path, but it does not resolve what the firm's obligations are when that path is taken and the client nonetheless chooses the environmentally harmful option. At that point, the firm faces a genuine conflict between faithful agent duty and public welfare paramount obligation that cannot be resolved by reference to client autonomy alone.
Under the facts, traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work.
The Board resolved the tension between Client Loyalty Obligation and Public Welfare Paramount by treating the traditional irrigation system as falling below the threshold of harm that would override faithful execution of the client's contracted scope. Because the hydrogeological study documented water table depletion rather than an imminent threat to life, safety, or property in the immediate statutory sense, the Board implicitly placed the irrigation task within the zone of permissible engineering work where client loyalty governs. However, this resolution is incomplete: it does not specify the precise harm threshold at which public welfare would override client loyalty, leaving a doctrinal gap for cases where environmental harm is documented, cumulative, and community-wide rather than acute and individual. The case teaches that the paramount public welfare obligation under Canon I is not self-executing in environmental contexts — engineers and the Board must affirmatively identify the harm threshold, and the semi-arid water table scenario sits uncomfortably close to that undrawn line. The resolution here functions less as a principled synthesis and more as a default to client loyalty in the absence of an explicit regulatory prohibition, which may underweight the documented community impact on historically underserved populations dependent on the regional water table.
The tension between Professional Scope Boundary — arising from the landscape architect's authority to specify the irrigation system — and the Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation on Jaylani and Wasser was not resolved by the Board but was effectively dissolved by treating the two principles as operating in separate domains. The Board implicitly accepted that deference to the landscape architect's specification authority governs the design decision, while the MEP engineer's independent technical knowledge of water table risk operates in a separate advisory domain. This separation is ethically unstable. An MEP engineer who possesses technical knowledge — here, confirmed by a hydrogeological study — that a specified system will cause documented environmental harm cannot ethically discharge that knowledge simply by deferring to another discipline's specification authority. The Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation is not extinguished by interdisciplinary deference; it is triggered precisely because the MEP engineer holds technical competence the specifying discipline may lack. The case therefore teaches that professional scope boundaries define who controls the design decision, not who bears the duty to disclose known risks. Jaylani retained an independent obligation to communicate the hydrogeological study's findings to the Resort Development Client regardless of the landscape architect's specification authority, and the Board's silence on this point represents an unresolved tension rather than a principled synthesis.
The tension between the Sustainable Development Advocacy principle — invoked by Wasser through his formal memorandum — and the Client Loyalty Obligation was resolved by the Board through a normative hierarchy embedded in the NSPE Code itself: because Code Provision III.2.d frames sustainable development adherence as 'encouraged' rather than mandatory, the Board treated it as a non-binding aspiration that cannot override the binding fiduciary duty to the client under Canon I.4. This resolution carries an important but underexamined implication: the 'encouraged' framing creates a structural asymmetry in which sustainability considerations are systematically subordinated to client loyalty whenever the two conflict, regardless of the magnitude of documented environmental harm. The case teaches that the permissive language of III.2.d functions as an ethical ceiling for sustainability advocacy within the Code's current architecture — engineers may advocate for sustainable alternatives and may refuse on personal conviction, but the Code as written does not empower them to treat sustainability non-compliance as a basis for declining otherwise lawful work. However, this resolution does not foreclose the possibility that Canon I's paramount public welfare obligation independently imposes a binding sustainability duty when the environmental harm is sufficiently severe and documented — a question the Board left open by characterizing the traditional irrigation design as an ethical expression of engineering work without fully engaging the hydrogeological evidence. The case thus exposes a latent conflict between the Code's permissive sustainability provision and its mandatory public welfare canon that will require more explicit doctrinal development as environmental harms from engineering projects become more precisely quantifiable.
The tension between the Proactive Design Alternatives Obligation on Jaylani and Cutting Edge and the Environmental Stewardship principle invoked by Wasser reveals that the Board's resolution — implicitly endorsing the offer of green alternatives as an ethically sufficient response — conflates the duty to present options with the duty to disclose documented risks. Offering sustainable alternatives as an add-on service satisfies the Proactive Design Alternatives Obligation only if the client is simultaneously informed of the specific, documented environmental consequences of the baseline traditional design. Where a hydrogeological study has already established that the traditional system will lower the water table in a semi-arid region with dependent communities, presenting alternatives without disclosing that study's findings reduces the alternatives offer to a commercial upsell rather than an informed-consent mechanism. Environmental Stewardship as a professional principle requires that the client's choice between design options be genuinely informed by the engineer's technical knowledge of consequences — not merely that alternatives exist on a menu. The case therefore teaches that the Proactive Design Alternatives Obligation and the Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation are not independent duties that can be satisfied separately; they are jointly necessary conditions for ethical stewardship when documented environmental harm is at stake. Satisfying one without the other — offering alternatives without disclosing the hydrogeological risk, or disclosing the risk without offering alternatives — falls short of the integrated stewardship duty the Code's public welfare canon demands.
The Board's characterization of Wasser's refusal as ethically permissible but 'extreme' reflects an implicit principle prioritization: within the NSPE Code's architecture, the virtue of practical wisdom in professional dissent favors completing assigned work while simultaneously advocating for change over outright refusal, unless the work itself crosses a mandatory ethical prohibition. Because the sustainable development provision is framed as encouraged rather than mandatory, and because the traditional irrigation design was not found to violate a binding code provision, the Board's 'extreme' characterization signals that proportionate dissent — completing the task while formally objecting and proposing alternatives — is the preferred professional response to non-mandatory sustainability concerns. This resolution teaches a broader principle about the calibration of professional conscience: the strength of a dissent response should be proportionate to the normative weight of the violated obligation. Where the obligation is mandatory and the harm is acute, refusal may be not only permissible but required. Where the obligation is aspirational and the harm is documented but not immediately catastrophic, the proportionate response is advocacy within the system rather than unilateral withdrawal from it. Wasser's refusal was not wrong in kind — personal conviction dissent is recognized — but it was disproportionate in degree relative to the non-mandatory status of the sustainability provision, and it foreclosed the more constructive path of completing the task while building the evidentiary and professional record for sustainable alternatives. The case thus teaches that the ethics of professional refusal cannot be assessed solely by the validity of the underlying concern; the proportionality of the response to the normative weight of the violated obligation is itself an independent ethical variable.
Cutting Edge Engineering accepting the contract before Engineer Jaylani assigning Wasser the irrigation task
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work... Engineer Intern Wasser is a new employee at Cutting Edge, and Engineer Jaylani assigns Wasser the task of sketching out details for the irrigation system.
Cutting Edge Engineering accepting the contract
Engineer Jaylani assigning Wasser the irrigation task
Cutting Edge Ethical Reasoning Sustainability Integration Capability Instance
Cutting Edge Engineering as a firm was required to demonstrate ethical reasoning capability to integrate sustainable development principles into the analysis of the resort irrigation system specification and determine appropriate professional response to the identified sustainability-environmental conflict
Cutting Edge Engineering's sustainable development integration obligation required firm-level ethical reasoning capability to weigh sustainability principles against contractual obligations and client preferences
Obligation to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into the firm's analysis of the irrigation system specification following receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into their analysis of the resort irrigation system specification
asserts that Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work
Cutting Edge Sustainable Development Client Education Resort Irrigation
Sustainable Development Client Education Capability
Cutting Edge Engineering was required to exercise the capability to proactively educate the resort development client about sustainable irrigation alternatives — including rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and green infrastructure options — in a manner that harmonized faithful agent obligations with sustainable development principles
BER identified client education about sustainable alternatives as the optimal path for Cutting Edge to fulfill both faithful agent and sustainability obligations, rather than either silent compliance or task refusal
The BER's endorsement of Cutting Edge and Wasser sharing sustainable options with the client as the path that best integrates all code provisions
By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d.
Suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Was it ethical for Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task, and did that acceptance carry an independent obligation to disclose the hydrogeological study's documented water table risk to the Resort Development Client?
Whether Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to accept the resort irrigation design task and, if so, whether acceptance carried an independent affirmative duty to disclose the hydrogeological study's water table depletion findings to the Resort Development Client before or concurrent with proceeding — regardless of the landscape architect's specification authority and regardless of Wasser's internal objection.
Accept the irrigation design task and proactively disclose the hydrogeological study's water table depletion findings to the Resort Development Client before or concurrent with proceeding, presenting sustainable alternative irrigation options alongside the traditional design
Accept the irrigation design task and proceed with executing the landscape architect's traditional irrigation specification without separately disclosing the hydrogeological study's findings to the Resort Development Client, treating the specification authority as resolving the disclosure question
Decline to accept the irrigation design task on the grounds that the hydrogeological study's documented water table risk in a semi-arid region elevates the public welfare stakes beyond what faithful execution of the client's contracted scope can ethically accommodate
Client Loyalty Obligation On Cutting Edge Engineering
Was it ethical for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse to perform the irrigation system design development task, and was outright refusal a proportionate professional response given the normative weight of the sustainability concern?
Whether Engineer Intern Wasser's outright refusal to perform the irrigation system sketching task was an ethically proportionate response to the sustainability and environmental concerns identified — given that NSPE Code III.2.d frames sustainable development adherence as encouraged rather than mandatory — or whether a more proportionate response would have been to complete the assigned task while simultaneously submitting the formal sustainability memorandum and developing a concrete sustainable alternative design.
Complete the assigned irrigation sketching task under protest while simultaneously submitting the formal sustainability memorandum with hydrogeological evidence and developing a concrete sustainable alternative irrigation design for presentation to Engineer Jaylani and the Resort Development Client
Refuse outright to perform the irrigation sketching task before any design work is performed, submitting only the formal sustainability memorandum to Engineer Jaylani as the primary form of objection
Perform the irrigation sketching task without objection, deferring entirely to Engineer Jaylani's authority as supervising engineer and the landscape architect's specification authority
Wasser Task Refusal Proportionality Assessment
Does the landscape architect's specification authority relieve Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering of independent professional responsibility for the environmental consequences of executing that specification, or does the MEP engineer retain an independent duty to evaluate and disclose known water table risks?
Whether the landscape architect's authority to specify the traditional irrigation system relieves Cutting Edge Engineering and Engineer Jaylani of independent professional responsibility for evaluating and disclosing the environmental consequences of executing that specification — specifically the hydrogeological study's documented water table depletion risk — or whether the MEP engineer retains an independent duty to flag sustainability risks falling within their own technical competence regardless of which discipline originated the specification.
Independently evaluate the hydrogeological study's water table findings within the MEP engineer's technical competence and communicate those findings to the Resort Development Client and the landscape architect, regardless of the landscape architect's specification authority over the irrigation system type
Defer entirely to the landscape architect's specification authority and execute the traditional irrigation design without independently evaluating or disclosing the hydrogeological study's water table findings, treating the interdisciplinary scope boundary as resolving the disclosure question
Professional Scope Boundary Question Re Landscape Architect Specification
Does the semi-arid regional context and documented water table harm elevate the traditional irrigation design to a public welfare concern under Canon I, and does Canon I independently impose binding obligations that III.2.d's permissive language cannot override?
Whether the semi-arid regional context and the hydrogeological study's documented impact on communities dependent on the regional water table elevate the traditional irrigation system design from a permissible engineering task to one that implicates the paramount public welfare obligation under Canon I — and whether the NSPE Code's framing of sustainable development adherence as 'encouraged' rather than mandatory in III.2.d creates a genuine ethical loophole permitting engineers to proceed with designs carrying documented environmental harm, or whether Canon I independently imposes a binding disclosure and advocacy obligation regardless of III.2.d's permissive language.
Treat the traditional irrigation design as conditionally permissible and discharge the Canon I public welfare obligation by disclosing the hydrogeological study's water table findings to the Resort Development Client, presenting sustainable alternative irrigation designs, and documenting the client's informed decision to proceed
Treat the traditional irrigation design as unconditionally permissible under III.2.d's aspirational framing and proceed with execution without conditioning acceptance on client disclosure of the hydrogeological study's findings
Treat the semi-arid context and documented community water dependency as crossing the Canon I threshold that converts the design task from permissible to impermissible, and decline to execute the traditional irrigation scope unless the client modifies the specification to a sustainable alternative
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Wasser
If the traditional irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work, what must Cutting Edge Engineering do to complete the design ethically after Wasser's refusal — and is simple task reassignment sufficient, or must the firm integrate Wasser's objection into a proactive client disclosure and alternatives presentation?
Whether Cutting Edge Engineering's most ethically complete path to completing the irrigation design — following Wasser's refusal — is to simply reassign the task to a willing engineer, or whether the firm is obligated to integrate Wasser's documented sustainability objection into its client communication by presenting the Resort Development Client with the hydrogeological study's findings, the sustainability concerns raised, and a developed sustainable irrigation alternative alongside the traditional design, so that the client's decision to proceed is fully informed.
Reassign the irrigation sketching task to another engineer or complete it through Jaylani, and simultaneously present the Resort Development Client with the hydrogeological study's water table findings, Wasser's sustainability concerns, and a fully developed sustainable alternative irrigation design alongside the traditional design, documenting the client's informed decision to proceed
Reassign the irrigation sketching task to another engineer or complete it through Jaylani without separately presenting the hydrogeological study's findings or sustainable alternatives to the Resort Development Client, treating task completion as the full discharge of the firm's obligation
Decline to complete the irrigation design scope until the Resort Development Client has been presented with the hydrogeological study's findings and has had a meaningful opportunity to choose a sustainable alternative, conditioning further design work on that informed client decision
Was Wasser's formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani a sufficient discharge of the professional obligation triggered by the hydrogeological study's water table findings, or did the severity of the documented public harm require escalation beyond the firm's internal hierarchy?
Whether Wasser's formal internal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani constituted a sufficient and proportionate discharge of the professional obligation triggered by the hydrogeological study's findings about water table depletion in a semi-arid region — or whether the severity of the documented public harm, affecting communities dependent on the regional water table, created a stronger escalation obligation extending beyond the firm's internal hierarchy to regulatory bodies or public authorities if internal channels failed to produce corrective action.
Submit the formal sustainability memorandum to Engineer Jaylani as a necessary first step, and if Jaylani fails to take corrective action — including client notification and sustainable alternatives presentation — escalate the documented water table risk to appropriate regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over water resources in the semi-arid region
Treat the formal sustainability memorandum to Engineer Jaylani as a complete and sufficient discharge of the professional obligation triggered by the hydrogeological study's findings, without further escalation beyond the firm's internal hierarchy
Complete the assigned irrigation sketching task under protest while simultaneously submitting the formal sustainability memorandum and escalating the hydrogeological study's findings directly to regulatory water resource authorities without waiting for Jaylani's response
Escalation of internal conflict beyond a simple task reassignment
Forcing Jaylani and Cutting Edge leadership to take an official position on the sustainability issue
Possible client notification becoming necessary once the concern is formally documented
Potential reputational risk to Wasser within the firm for being seen as difficult
NSPE Code III.2.d: actively promoting sustainable development principles through formal professional channels
Post-2007 BER Case 07-6 standard: ensuring environmental threat information is not omitted from the professional record
Public welfare protection by creating an official record that may compel client notification
Transparency and honesty obligations within the firm
Right of engineers to formally document ethical dissent
UN Sustainable Development Goals as globally recognized ethical standard
Create a formal record of the ethical concern, compel the firm to address the sustainability issue through official channels, and protect himself professionally by documenting his principled objection
Ability to synthesize hydrogeological study findings into professional argument
Professional writing and formal memorandum drafting
Understanding of firm's internal escalation processes
Present case, concurrent with or immediately following task refusal
NSPE Code I.4 faithful agent obligation, escalating dissent to formal documentation further strains the employer relationship
Professional norms of intern deference, formally invoking international sustainability frameworks against a supervisor's direction is an unusually assertive act for an intern
Engineer Intern Wasser submitted a formal written memorandum to Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering documenting his refusal, invoking UN Sustainable Development Goals and NSPE Code III.2.d as the ethical basis, and citing the hydrogeological study findings. This transformed a verbal refusal into an official professional record requiring a formal organizational response.
Formal Sustainability Memorandum Submission → Response to Wasser's Dissent
Engineer Intern Wasser submitted a formal written memorandum to Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering [which means] Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering leadership must decide how to formally respond to Wasser's [dissent]
Had Wasser only verbally refused without submitting a formal memorandum, Jaylani and the firm might have resolved the matter informally or simply reassigned the task without creating a formal decision record or ethical accountability moment
BER precedent establishing that firms cannot simply ignore formally documented engineer dissent
Jaylani's and firm leadership's managerial authority and responsibility over Wasser
NSPE Code obligations on the firm and supervising engineer to address documented ethical concerns
Wasser's formal written memorandum creating an official record requiring response
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering leadership (shared)
Formal written memorandum + managerial authority + NSPE obligations = sufficient to compel a formal response decision
The written nature of the memorandum transforms an informal dispute into a formal organizational and ethical obligation requiring documented response
Unspecified hydrogeological research body
Recent Hydrogeological Study on Proposed Irrigation Water Usage and Water Table Effects
cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
Cited by Engineer Intern Wasser as empirical scientific evidence that the proposed traditional lawn irrigation system would lower the water table, providing factual grounding for the ethical argument that the project poses environmental harm and is inconsistent with sustainable water management
Objective scientific evidence enters the professional context; what was previously a design preference becomes an evidence-based environmental concern; Wasser's refusal shifts from insubordination to potentially evidence-backed professional judgment
Prior to present case (recent, exact date unspecified)
A recent hydrogeological study of the southwestern U.S. region where the resort is located documented water scarcity conditions, providing the scientific evidentiary basis for Wasser's sustainability objection to the traditional lawn irrigation system.
Hydrogeological Study Published → Wasser's Sustainability Concern Triggered
A recent hydrogeological study of the southwestern U.S. region where the resort is located documented [water scarcity conditions], and upon receiving the irrigation sketching assignment, Engineer Intern Wasser's awareness of the recent [study] triggered his sustainability concern
Without the published hydrogeological study, Wasser would have lacked the scientific evidentiary basis for his sustainability objection; without NSPE III.2.d, he would have lacked the formal ethical grounding; either absence would likely have prevented the formal refusal
Wasser's Sustainability Concern Triggered
Publication and availability of the hydrogeological study documenting regional water stress
Receipt of the irrigation sketching assignment as the activating event
Wasser's awareness of NSPE Code provision III.2.d on sustainable development
Wasser's prior knowledge of or access to the study findings
Engineer Intern Wasser (primary); NSPE (institutional); hydrogeological researchers (informational)
Hydrogeological study findings + NSPE III.2.d provision + task assignment = sufficient to trigger Wasser's ethical concern
The study provided the empirical factual basis; the NSPE provision provided the normative ethical framework; the assignment provided the immediate trigger
licensed engineer, supervisor at Cutting Edge Engineering
No apparent foresight of intern's ethical objection or awareness of hydrogeological study at time of assignment
Potential quality risk if intern lacked sufficient irrigation design experience
Faithful agent obligation to employer and client (NSPE Code I.4), advancing project work within contracted scope
Supervisory responsibility to delegate and manage intern workload appropriately
Efficient project execution and client service
NSPE Code III.2.d sustainable development encouragement (not yet actively applied)
Supervisory delegation as standard professional practice
Advance project deliverables by delegating technical sketching work to an available intern, fulfilling contractual obligations to the client on schedule
NSPE Code III.2.d: by assigning work to execute a potentially environmentally harmful design without first reviewing available hydrogeological data, Jaylani missed an opportunity to fulfill the sustainability encouragement
Post-2007 BER Case 07-6 standard: proactive disclosure of known environmental threats. Jaylani had not yet surfaced the hydrogeological concern to the client prior to proceeding
Awareness of intern capabilities and limitations
Familiarity with irrigation system design requirements
Present case, design phase following contract acceptance
Engineer Jaylani assigned Engineer Intern Wasser the task of sketching details for the traditional lawn irrigation system as specified by the landscape architect. This was a routine supervisory delegation of technical drafting work within an accepted project scope.
Jaylani Client Choice Domain Recognition Resort Irrigation
Client Choice Domain Recognition Capability
Engineer Jaylani was required to correctly identify that the traditional irrigation system specification fell within the domain of legitimate client choice — given the absence of zoning restrictions, building code prohibitions, or mandatory code provisions requiring sustainable design — and to calibrate Cutting Edge's response accordingly
Jaylani needed to assess whether the client's preference for a traditional irrigation system was within the client's legitimate authority to choose, given no legal prohibitions, before determining the appropriate professional response
The BER's analysis that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible and not unethical, reflecting the client-choice domain determination that Jaylani needed to make
Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system.
Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical.
such a project would lie within the space of 'client choice,' similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification.
Jaylani Cutting Edge Evolving Sustainability Standard BER Precedent Application
The BER noted a shift in perspective from BER Case 05-4 (pre-2007, individual professional judgment as final arbiter) to BER Case 07-6 (post-2007, sustainability considerations increasingly weighted), requiring that current professional obligations be interpreted in light of this evolution
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering
Evolving Sustainability Standard Judicial Deference Constraint
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering are constrained to interpret their professional sustainability obligations in light of the post-2007 BER precedent reflecting the increasing priority of sustainability principles, prohibiting reliance on pre-sustainability-provision professional norms (such as BER Case 05-4) as sufficient authority for dismissing Wasser's sustainability concerns as outside the scope of professional ethical obligation.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d (2007 addition); BER Cases 05-4, 07-6, 15-12
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER's perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society's needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs.
Throughout the evaluation of Wasser's sustainability objection and the firm's response to the irrigation design assignment
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers.
the BER's current perspective is toward the engineer's judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters.
Jaylani Cutting Edge Hybrid Sustainable Design Exploration Resort Irrigation
The BER endorsed the approach of introducing sustainable alternatives such as rainwater harvesting and reuse as a means of resolving the ethical tension between faithful agent obligation and sustainable development encouragement, rather than accepting the binary choice between traditional irrigation and task refusal
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering are constrained to explore and present to the resort client whether hybrid or sustainable irrigation solutions — such as rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and stormwater management — exist that could achieve the client's goals while mitigating water table depletion risks, before accepting the binary framing of traditional versus no irrigation system as definitive.
NSPE Code Sections I.4 and III.2.d; BER analysis of present case
One approach might be 'green' options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management.
Prior to client presentation and final design selection for the resort irrigation system
Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse?
The point is, given Wasser's education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client's needs.
Jaylani Cutting Edge Written Report Completeness Water Table Risk
The hydrogeological study provided credible technical evidence of water table depletion risk. Any written reports or client communications regarding the irrigation system were required to include this risk information.
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were constrained to include the hydrogeologically documented water table risk in any written communications or reports to the resort client regarding the irrigation system, prohibiting selective omission of the known environmental risk even if it had been verbally discussed internally.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; BER Case 07-6
Upon receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum and throughout client communication
In a formal memorandum to Jaylani, Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals
Jaylani Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Sustainability
Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability
Engineer Jaylani was required to be aware of the 2007 addition of the sustainable development provision to the NSPE Code and the resulting shift in BER perspective toward sustainability-informed professional judgment, in order to correctly assess Cutting Edge's obligations in the resort irrigation case
Jaylani's response to Wasser's objection required awareness that the profession's ethical standards had evolved to include sustainability considerations, even if those considerations remained encouraged rather than mandatory
The need to apply post-2007 NSPE Code standards and current BER perspective on sustainability rather than pre-amendment interpretations when evaluating Wasser's objection and Cutting Edge's obligations
In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d
This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers
Jaylani Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization Resort Project
Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization Capability
Engineer Jaylani, as MEP firm principal, was required to exercise the capability to harmonize Cutting Edge's faithful agent obligations to the resort client with the professional encouragement to adhere to sustainable development principles — including identifying the integrative path of presenting sustainable alternatives while completing the contracted work
As firm principal, Jaylani bore responsibility for identifying and implementing the harmonizing solution endorsed by the BER — presenting sustainable alternatives to the client while fulfilling the contracted scope
Jaylani's role in responding to Wasser's sustainability objection and determining how Cutting Edge should proceed with the irrigation system assignment
It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer's obligation to the client/employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles.
Jaylani Fiduciary Duty Balancing Capability Instance
Engineer Jaylani was required to demonstrate capability to balance fiduciary duties to the resort development client with overriding professional obligations to sustainable development and environmental protection, recognizing when client interests in the traditional irrigation system must be weighed against public welfare and sustainability imperatives
Engineer Jaylani's faithful agent sustainability trustee role required balancing client service obligations with professional sustainability and environmental protection duties
Obligation to act as faithful agent and trustee of the resort client while simultaneously fulfilling sustainable development advocacy and environmental risk disclosure obligations
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to act as faithful agents and trustees of the resort development client — serving the client's legitimate interests while simultaneously fulfilling professional obligations to sustainable development and environmental protection
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work
Jaylani Risk Communication to Client Capability Instance
Engineer Jaylani was required to demonstrate capability to clearly and completely communicate the water table lowering risk identified in the hydrogeological study to the resort development client in a timely manner
Engineer Jaylani's timely risk disclosure obligation required capability to communicate preliminary but credible hydrogeological risk findings to the client before the irrigation system design was finalized
Obligation to promptly disclose to the resort development client the risk of water table lowering identified in the hydrogeological study cited by Wasser
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to promptly disclose to the resort development client the risk of water table lowering identified in the hydrogeological study
Jaylani SDG Alignment Assessment Capability Instance
Sustainable Development Goal Alignment Assessment Capability
Engineer Jaylani as supervising engineer was required to evaluate the SDG alignment analysis presented in Wasser's formal memorandum and assess its implications for the firm's professional obligations
Engineer Jaylani's supervisory response obligation required capability to evaluate the SDG alignment analysis in Wasser's memorandum and determine appropriate professional response
Obligation to conduct substantive review of Wasser's SDG-based sustainability objections upon receipt of the formal memorandum
Engineer Jaylani was obligated, upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks, to conduct a substantive review
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals
Jaylani Semi-Arid Water Resource Engineering Competence Instance
Semi-Arid Region Water Resource Engineering Competence
Engineer Jaylani as MEP firm principal was required to possess or acquire capability to evaluate the water resource implications of the proposed irrigation system in the semi-arid southwestern US context, including assessing the hydrogeological risk evidence cited by Wasser
Engineer Jaylani's supervisory response obligation required evaluation of water resource engineering implications of the resort irrigation system in a semi-arid region
Obligation to evaluate the hydrogeological study findings and assess water table lowering risk as part of the supervisory response to Wasser's formal objection
a new resort that will be located in a semi-arid region of the southwestern United States
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to ensure that the resort irrigation system design adequately protected the regional water resources
Jaylani Supervising Engineer Sustainability Objection Response Procedural Constraint
Engineer Jaylani received a formal memorandum from Engineer Intern Wasser identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks. The procedural constraint required a graduated response beginning with internal substantive review before any external escalation.
Graduated Subconsultant Escalation Procedural Constraint
Engineer Jaylani was constrained to follow a graduated response sequence upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum — first conducting a substantive internal review of the sustainability and hydrogeological concerns, then communicating findings to the client and landscape architect, and only thereafter determining whether external escalation was warranted — prohibiting both dismissal of the concerns without substantive review and premature external escalation that bypassed internal resolution opportunities.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-6; BER Case 22-10
Upon receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum
Jaylani Sustainability Code Provision Normative Weight Assessment
Sustainability Code Provision Normative Weight Assessment Capability
Engineer Jaylani was required to correctly assess the differential normative weight of the faithful agent provision (mandatory: 'shall') versus the sustainable development provision (encouraged: 'are encouraged to') in order to correctly advise Wasser and determine Cutting Edge's obligations
Jaylani's response to Wasser's sustainability objection required correct assessment of the normative weight of competing code provisions to determine whether task refusal was obligatory or merely permissible
The BER's analysis distinguishing mandatory faithful agent obligations from encouraged sustainable development adherence, which Jaylani needed to apply in responding to Wasser's objection
the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is 'encouraged.'
The facts do not support an engineer's required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic.
refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory.
Jaylani Sustainability Objection Supervisory Response Capability Instance
Sustainability Objection Supervisory Response Capability
Engineer Jaylani was required to demonstrate capability to receive and respond appropriately to Wasser's formal sustainability objection memorandum, including evaluating the technical evidence and determining whether client notification obligations were triggered
Engineer Jaylani as firm principal received Wasser's formal memorandum and was obligated to conduct a substantive review and formulate an appropriate professional response
Receipt of the formal memorandum from Engineer Intern Wasser documenting sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks requiring supervisory evaluation and response
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering
Engineer Jaylani assigns Wasser the task of sketching out details for the irrigation system
Jaylani Sustainability Objection Supervisory Response Resort Irrigation
Engineer Jaylani was required to receive and respond appropriately to Wasser's formal sustainability objection — including conducting substantive review of the technical evidence, assessing the normative weight of the sustainability concerns, determining whether client notification was required, and formulating a professional response that identified the integrative path of presenting sustainable alternatives while completing the contracted work
As firm principal, Jaylani bore primary responsibility for the supervisory response to Wasser's sustainability objection, including determining the appropriate path forward for both the firm and the client
Jaylani's role as supervising principal engineer responsible for determining Cutting Edge's response to Wasser's objection and the firm's approach to the resort irrigation assignment
endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical.
Jaylani Sustainable Development Client Education Capability Instance
Engineer Jaylani as firm principal was required to demonstrate capability to proactively educate the resort development client about sustainable irrigation alternatives and the sustainability conflicts identified in Wasser's formal memorandum
Engineer Jaylani's client notification obligation required capability to present sustainable development alternatives and their tradeoffs to the resort client in a manner consistent with faithful agent duties
Obligation to notify the resort development client of the sustainability-environmental conflict identified by Wasser's memorandum and the hydrogeological study
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated, having received Wasser's formal memorandum with the hydrogeological study evidence, to notify the resort development client
Jaylani Cutting Edge Sustainable Development Integration Resort Irrigation
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certification
such a project would lie within the space of 'client choice,' similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to frame sustainable irrigation options as analogous to voluntary LEED certification choices
Referenced as an analogical example of voluntary green building standards representing client choice within the space of sustainable design options, used to illustrate that sustainable development provisions operate as encouraged rather than mandatory requirements
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Professional Obligation III.2.d
Wasser points to NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d, 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development,' and claims the proposed lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles.
Cited by Engineer Intern Wasser in a formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani as normative authority supporting the claim that the proposed traditional lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles and that engineers are encouraged to adhere to sustainable development principles
Engineering profession gains formal ethical infrastructure; all subsequent professional conduct becomes measurable against codified standards
The National Society of Professional Engineers formally established its Canons of Ethics in 1946, creating the foundational professional ethical framework that would govern engineering practice and evolve over subsequent decades.
NSPE Canons Established and Sustainable Development Provision Added → Formal Sustainability Memorandum Submission
The National Society of Professional Engineers formally established its Canons of Ethics in 1946 [and] in 2007, NSPE added provision III.2.d to its Code of Ethics, formally incorporating sustainable development [which provided the normative basis for] Engineer Intern Wasser [submitting] a formal written memorandum
NSPE Canons Established and Sustainable Development Provision Added
Had NSPE not added III.2.d in 2007, Wasser's objection would have rested on weaker general ethical grounds rather than a specific code provision, significantly reducing the formal legitimacy and likely deterring the written memorandum submission
Addition of III.2.d specifically incorporating sustainable development obligations
NSPE Canons establishing the foundational ethical framework for professional engineers
The hydrogeological study providing factual grounding for the sustainability claim
Wasser's status as an NSPE-governed engineering professional or intern
NSPE (institutional standard-setter); Engineer Intern Wasser (applying the standard)
NSPE Canons + III.2.d provision + hydrogeological evidence + task assignment = sufficient normative and factual basis for formal memorandum
Without III.2.d, Wasser would have lacked a specific, codified professional obligation to cite in his memorandum
NSPE Canons of Ethics origin (1946) before addition of sustainable development provision III.2.d (July 2007)
The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d.
NSPE Code Section I.4 - Faithful Agent Obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section I.4
Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code's ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to evaluate Wasser's competing obligations
Establishes the mandatory obligation for engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees for employers and clients, creating the primary tension with the encouraged sustainable development provision in Wasser's case
NSPE Code Section II.3.a - Objectivity and Truthfulness
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.3.a
under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in BER Case 07-6 analysis referenced in this discussion
Cited in BER Case 07-6 analysis to establish engineer's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports, including environmental threats such as endangered species impacts
NSPE Code Section III.2.d - Sustainable Development Provision
National Society of Professional Engineers House of Delegates
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.2.d
Sustainable Development Ethics Provision
In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.'
the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is 'encouraged'
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to evaluate Wasser's sustainability-based dissent
Establishes the encouraged (non-mandatory) nature of sustainable development adherence, used to distinguish between ethically permissible and ethically obligatory conduct in the irrigation system design case
Adopted July 2007 by NSPE House of Delegates
the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics
This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development.
engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
NSPE Board of Ethical Review in adjudicating competing obligations between faithful agency and sustainable development
Primary normative authority for evaluating Engineer Intern Wasser's competing obligations as faithful agent and sustainability advocate, and for determining whether refusal to perform the irrigation design task is ethically permissible or obligatory
Including 2007 sustainable development amendment
Was it ethical for Cutting Edge Engineering and Engineer Jaylani to accept the irrigation system design task?
Did Engineer Jaylani have an independent obligation to disclose the hydrogeological study's findings about water table depletion to the resort client before accepting or proceeding with the irrigation design task, regardless of Wasser's objection?
Does the landscape architect's authority to specify the irrigation system relieve Cutting Edge Engineering and Engineer Jaylani of any professional responsibility for the environmental consequences of executing that specification, or does the MEP engineer retain an independent duty to evaluate and flag sustainability risks that fall within their technical competence?
Was Wasser's formal memorandum a sufficient and proportionate response to the identified environmental risk, or did the hydrogeological study's findings about water table depletion in a semi-arid region create a stronger obligation — one requiring escalation beyond the firm to regulatory bodies or the public — rather than merely an internal objection?
To what extent does the semi-arid regional context and the documented impact on communities dependent on the water table elevate the traditional irrigation system design from a permissible engineering task to one that implicates the paramount public welfare obligation, potentially changing the ethical calculus for both Jaylani and Wasser?
Was it ethical for Engineer Intern Wasser to refuse to perform the task of design development for the proposed irrigation system?
Does the Client Loyalty Obligation on Cutting Edge Engineering conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle invoked by Wasser regarding the water table, and if so, at what threshold of documented environmental harm does the public welfare obligation override faithful execution of the client's contracted scope?
Does the Professional Scope Boundary Question regarding the landscape architect's specification authority conflict with the Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation on Wasser and Jaylani regarding the water table, and can deference to another discipline's specification ever ethically excuse an engineer from disclosing known environmental risks that fall within the engineer's own technical knowledge?
Does the Sustainable Development Advocacy principle invoked by Wasser through his formal memorandum conflict with the Client Loyalty Obligation on Cutting Edge Engineering, and given that NSPE Code III.2.d frames sustainable development adherence as encouraged rather than mandatory, how should an engineer weigh a non-mandatory sustainability principle against a core fiduciary duty to a client who has not been shown to be acting illegally?
Does the Proactive Design Alternatives Obligation on Jaylani and Cutting Edge conflict with the Environmental Stewardship principle invoked by Wasser, in the sense that merely offering green alternatives as an add-on service may be ethically insufficient if the baseline traditional design is already documented to cause measurable environmental harm — and does offering alternatives without disclosing the documented risk satisfy or fall short of the engineer's stewardship duty?
If the traditional lawn irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work, what can Engineer Jaylani’s firm do to complete the design since Wasser refused?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Jaylani fulfill a duty to disclose the hydrogeological study's findings about water table depletion to the Resort Development Client, independent of whether the traditional irrigation system design was otherwise permissible?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the Board's conclusion that the traditional irrigation system design is an ethical expression of engineering work adequately weigh the long-term harm to historically underserved communities in the semi-arid region who depend on the water table that the system risks depleting?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrate the professional virtue of practical wisdom by choosing outright refusal rather than completing the assigned task while simultaneously advocating for sustainable alternatives, and does the Board's characterization of the refusal as 'extreme' reflect a judgment about the proportionality of that virtue?
From a deontological perspective, does the NSPE Code's framing of sustainable development adherence as 'encouraged' rather than mandatory create a genuine ethical loophole that permits engineers to proceed with designs that carry documented environmental harm, or does the paramount public welfare duty under Canon I independently impose a binding obligation regardless of the permissive language in Provision III.2.d?
Would the Board's ethical assessment of Engineer Intern Wasser's refusal have differed if Wasser had first completed the assigned irrigation sketching task and then formally submitted the sustainability memorandum alongside a fully developed sustainable alternative design, rather than refusing the task outright before any design work was performed?
If Engineer Jaylani had proactively disclosed the hydrogeological study's water table findings to the Resort Development Client before accepting the irrigation design task, would the client have had a meaningful opportunity to choose a sustainable irrigation alternative, and would that disclosure have changed whether the Board found the acceptance of the task ethical?
What if the hydrogeological study had concluded not merely that the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table but that it would render the regional water supply unsafe for surrounding communities — would that escalation of public harm have converted Engineer Jaylani's acceptance of the task from ethical to unethical, and would it have made Wasser's refusal not merely permissible but obligatory?
If Cutting Edge Engineering had proactively introduced green irrigation alternatives to the Resort Development Client at the outset of the project — as the Board suggests the firm is positioned to do — and the client had still insisted on the traditional system, would Engineer Jaylani's firm then bear a stronger obligation to decline the irrigation scope or escalate the water table risk concern beyond the client relationship to a regulatory or public authority?
firm, presumably through principal engineers and management
Assumption of contractual obligation to execute a potentially environmentally harmful irrigation design
Exposure to reputational and ethical risk if water table impacts become publicly known
Potential conflict between contractual scope and emerging sustainability obligations under NSPE Code III.2.d
Business obligation to firm stakeholders to secure work
Contractual obligation to client to provide professional MEP services
Broader public welfare protection (NSPE Code I.1)
Faithful agent to client (NSPE Code I.4)
Post-2007 BER shift toward proactive environmental disclosure
Sustainable development encouragement (NSPE Code III.2.d)
Secure revenue and fulfill client design needs for a resort development project including MEP scope
Implicit obligation under post-2007 BER precedent (Case 07-6) to proactively surface known or foreseeable environmental harms at project inception
NSPE Code III.2.d: engineers are encouraged to adhere to sustainable development principles, accepting a contract in a water-stressed region without scrutinizing the environmental impact of the specified irrigation system arguably falls short of this standard
Environmental impact awareness in semi-arid regions
Familiarity with NSPE Code post-2007 sustainability provisions
Cutting Edge Engineering voluntarily accepted the southwestern U.S. resort contract, which included mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work and incorporated a landscape architect's specification for a traditional lawn irrigation system for the golf course. This decision was made with knowledge of the regional context (semi-arid southwestern U.S.) and the specified irrigation approach.
Resort Contract Acceptance → Irrigation Sketching Task Assignment
Cutting Edge Engineering voluntarily accepted the southwestern U.S. resort contract, which included [irrigation system work], leading Jaylani to assign Engineer Intern Wasser the task of sketching details for the traditional irrigation system
Had Cutting Edge Engineering declined the resort contract or negotiated out the irrigation component, the task assignment to Wasser would never have occurred and the subsequent ethical conflict would not have arisen
Contract scope including traditional irrigation system design
Jaylani's authority to delegate tasks to intern staff
Voluntary acceptance of resort contract by Cutting Edge Engineering
Wasser's availability and assignment to the project
Cutting Edge Engineering (firm leadership) and Engineer Jaylani
Contract acceptance + irrigation scope + delegation authority = task assignment to Wasser
Without contract acceptance, no project obligation would have existed to trigger the assignment
Resort Development Client Developer Client
{'sector': 'Private resort development', 'location': 'Semi-arid region, southwestern United States'}
Private client commissioning a new resort in a semi-arid southwestern US region, for which Cutting Edge Engineering is contracted to perform MEP work including irrigation system design
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Cutting Edge Engineering'}
{'type': 'project_owner', 'target': 'Resort Project'}
under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work for a new resort
Resort Development Client Irrigation Decision Maker
{'project_type': 'Resort development in semi-arid region', 'decision_authority': 'Final choice over irrigation system approach', 'regulatory_context': 'No zoning or building code restrictions on traditional irrigation'}
The resort development client commissioned the multi-discipline project including the irrigation system specification, retains authority to accept or reject sustainable alternatives proposed by Cutting Edge and Wasser, and bears the right to insist on a traditional irrigation system if it is legally and technically permissible.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Cutting Edge MEP Firm'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Wasser Engineer Intern'}
{'type': 'commissioned', 'target': 'Landscape Architect Specifier'}
Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client's agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned
Suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not
Resort Project Landscape Architect Specifier
{'license': 'Landscape Architect (implied)', 'specialty': 'Landscape architecture and irrigation system specification'}
Specified a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort golf course, triggering the sustainability objection from Engineer Intern Wasser
{'type': 'specification_implemented_by', 'target': 'Cutting Edge Engineering'}
{'type': 'specifier_for', 'target': 'Resort Development Client'}
The project's landscape architect specifies a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort's golf course as part of the project
If Wasser is disciplined: chilling effect on future ethical dissent within the firm
If Wasser's position is validated: precedent for intern-level sustainability challenges to project specifications
If client is engaged: possible scope change, project delay, client dissatisfaction, or alternatively client appreciation for proactive stewardship
If task is simply reassigned: sustainability concern is suppressed, potential long-term liability if water table harm materializes
If firm conducts independent review: due diligence and public welfare obligations (NSPE Code I.1)
If firm engages client: NSPE Code III.2.d sustainable development encouragement, post-2007 BER Case 07-6 proactive disclosure standard, BER Case 15-12 obligation to explore creative alternatives before proceeding with potentially harmful design
BER Case 15-12: obligation to explore creative alternatives and balance all stakeholder interests
Post-2007 BER precedent: proactive environmental disclosure
Utilitarian consideration of greatest good, water table preservation affects broader community beyond resort client
Engineer Jaylani (licensed engineer, supervisor) and Cutting Edge Engineering leadership (firm principals)
Resolve the internal dissent, maintain project progress, satisfy the client, and determine the firm's position on the sustainability concern raised by Wasser
Client communication and relationship management
Environmental impact assessment literacy
Familiarity with NSPE Code of Ethics and BER precedent
Internal personnel and ethics management
Knowledge of sustainable irrigation alternatives
Senior engineering judgment on project scope modification
Present case, pending resolution phase following Wasser's memorandum
If Wasser is disciplined for ethical dissent: undermines the firm's ethical culture and potentially violates professional norms protecting engineers who raise legitimate concerns
If task is reassigned without substantive review: post-2007 BER Case 07-6 standard (omitting known environmental threat is unethical), NSPE Code III.2.d, public welfare obligation (NSPE Code I.1)
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering leadership must decide how to formally respond to Wasser's refusal and memorandum, options include reassigning the task without engaging the substance of the concern, engaging the client about sustainable alternatives, conducting an independent environmental review, or some combination. This pending decision is the central unresolved action of the case.
Engineering ethical framework formally expanded; sustainability moves from optional best practice to codified professional obligation; Wasser's future invocation of this provision gains formal legitimacy
In 2007, NSPE added provision III.2.d to its Code of Ethics, formally incorporating sustainable development as a professional obligation for engineers, expanding the ethical framework beyond traditional safety and competence concerns.
Sustainable Engineering Design Standard - Water Management
Professional engineering and sustainable design community
Sustainable Water Management and Green Infrastructure Design Standards
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to identify the technical pathway for harmonizing faithful agency with sustainable development encouragement
Referenced as the technical knowledge base enabling Wasser to propose sustainable alternatives to traditional irrigation, including rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and stormwater management as concrete design options that fulfill both client service and sustainability obligations
A specific design element, traditional lawn irrigation, is locked into project specifications by a non-engineering professional, creating downstream pressure on the engineering firm to implement a potentially environmentally problematic system
During project design phase, prior to Jaylani's task assignment
The landscape architect retained for the southwestern U.S. resort project specified a traditional lawn irrigation system for the golf course, introducing a design element that would later trigger the core ethical dispute in the case.
UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 — Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
UN Sustainable Development Goals Framework
Goal 11– Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
Cited by Engineer Intern Wasser in a formal memorandum as a normative benchmark supporting the argument that the proposed irrigation system is inconsistent with sustainable and resilient settlement development
UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
UN Sustainable Development Goal 15 — Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 15– Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
Cited by Engineer Intern Wasser in a formal memorandum as a normative benchmark supporting the argument that the proposed irrigation system in a semi-arid region contributes to desertification, land degradation, and biodiversity loss
UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 — Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals including but not limited to Goal 6– Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Cited by Engineer Intern Wasser in a formal memorandum as a normative benchmark demonstrating that the proposed traditional lawn irrigation system is inconsistent with internationally recognized sustainable water management principles
Wasser Client Education Through Sustainable Options Constraint Instance
Wasser refused to sketch irrigation details rather than proposing sustainable alternatives such as drip irrigation or rainwater harvesting systems, which would have fulfilled the sustainability advocacy obligation without breaching the faithful agent duty.
Client Education Through Sustainable Options Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained from refusing to perform the irrigation system design task as the primary means of fulfilling sustainability obligations — the obligation to adhere to sustainable development principles required Wasser to present sustainable alternatives to the supervising engineer and client rather than refusing to perform the assigned work.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2.d; BER Case 22-10
Wasser refuses to perform the task and says the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water
At the time of task assignment and throughout the project engagement
Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
Wasser Complete Design Alternative Presentation Sustainable Irrigation
Wasser's formal memorandum identified sustainability conflicts but did not present complete sustainable alternative design options with comparative analysis, which would have been the appropriate professional response to the sustainability concern.
Complete Design Alternative Presentation Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained, in presenting sustainability objections to Engineer Jaylani, to present sustainable alternative design approaches — such as drip irrigation, rainwater harvesting, or greywater reuse systems — completely and objectively, including their costs, feasibility in the semi-arid context, and performance characteristics, rather than simply refusing to perform the assigned task without proposing workable alternatives.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; BER Case 22-10; BER Case 21-7
At the time of formal memorandum submission and task refusal
Wasser Cutting Edge Client Insistence Agent Completion Irrigation Task
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to sketch irrigation system details for a resort golf course traditional lawn irrigation system specified by the landscape architect; Cutting Edge accepted the contract with that specification; the BER found that after presenting sustainable alternatives, completion of the assigned task is required if the client insists
Engineer Intern Wasser and Cutting Edge Engineering
Once Wasser and Cutting Edge present sustainable irrigation alternatives to the resort client and the client insists upon the traditional system, Wasser and Cutting Edge are constrained to complete the accepted and assigned irrigation design task as faithful agents, and may not continue to refuse performance on sustainability grounds after the client has exercised informed decision-making authority over a technically and legally permissible design choice.
NSPE Code Section I.4 (faithful agent obligation); BER Case analysis of present case
Following client presentation of sustainable alternatives and client insistence on traditional system
Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform.
Wasser Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Resort Irrigation
Engineer Intern Dissent Calibration Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated limited dissent calibration capability — correctly identifying a sustainability concern warranting objection but incorrectly calibrating the response as task refusal rather than the more proportionate and effective path of performing the task while proposing sustainable alternatives
BER found Wasser's refusal was permissible but not obligatory, and identified the alternative path of performing the task with sustainable advisory as more likely to achieve ethical objectives
Wasser's refusal to sketch irrigation system details, which the BER found was ethically permissible as personal conviction but not ethically obligatory, and not the optimal path to achieving sustainability objectives
As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge's position does not align with Wasser's view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser.
Wasser Engineer Intern Formal Objection Formulation Capability Instance
Engineer Intern Formal Objection Formulation Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated capability to formulate and communicate a formal professional objection through a written memorandum citing specific normative frameworks and technical evidence, channeled through appropriate supervisory channels
Wasser formulated the formal objection after being assigned the irrigation system sketching task, choosing to document concerns in writing rather than simply refusing or complying without objection
Preparation and submission of a formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani documenting sustainability objections with citations to UN SDGs, NSPE Code III.2.d, and a hydrogeological study
Wasser Fact-Grounded Opinion Hydrogeological Study Constraint
Wasser cited the hydrogeological study as empirical support for the water table risk claim, which satisfies the fact-grounded opinion requirement for that specific claim. However, Wasser's broader assertion that the firm should not do this kind of work extended beyond the factual basis of the study.
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained to ground their sustainability objection and environmental risk claims in established facts and completed professional analysis — specifically the hydrogeological study — rather than in personal preference or unverified assertions, and was constrained from overstating the normative authority of the UN SDGs as binding professional obligations.
At the time of formal memorandum submission to Engineer Jaylani
Wasser Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Capability Instance
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated capability to ground the sustainability objection in established technical facts — specifically the hydrogeological study — rather than mere personal opinion, correctly calibrating the objection to confirmed technical evidence
Wasser grounded the formal objection in the hydrogeological study findings when preparing the memorandum to Engineer Jaylani
Citation of a completed hydrogeological study as the factual basis for the water table lowering risk claim, distinguishing this from unsupported personal sustainability preferences
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to ground their sustainability objection in established facts and completed professional analysis — specifically the hydrogeological study
Wasser Faithful Agent Sustainability Harmonization
Engineer Intern Wasser possessed, but did not fully exercise, the capability to harmonize faithful agent obligations with sustainability encouragements — initially treating them as irreconcilable rather than identifying an integrative path
Wasser objected to the traditional irrigation system assignment on sustainability grounds but did not initially identify the path of performing the task while simultaneously proposing sustainable alternatives to the client
Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation task reflected awareness of the tension but insufficient capability to identify the harmonizing solution of proposing sustainable alternatives while completing the assigned work
he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client's needs.
Wasser Hydrogeological Risk Identification Capability Instance
Hydrogeological Risk Identification Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated capability to identify and apply hydrogeological study findings as credible technical evidence of environmental risk posed by the proposed irrigation system
Wasser identified and cited hydrogeological evidence when formulating the formal objection to the traditional irrigation system specification in a semi-arid region
Citation of a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed irrigation use would lower the water table as technical support for the sustainability objection
Wasser Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Navigation Capability Instance
Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Navigation Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated partial capability to navigate interdisciplinary scope boundaries by channeling the objection to the landscape architect's specification through the supervisory channel (Engineer Jaylani) rather than directly challenging the landscape architect
Wasser's objection concerned a specification originating from the landscape architect, and the formal memorandum was appropriately directed to the supervising engineer rather than the landscape architect directly
Directing the formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani rather than directly to the landscape architect, respecting the supervisory chain while raising concerns about a cross-disciplinary specification
Wasser Interdisciplinary Specification Authority Deference Landscape Architect
The landscape architect specified the traditional lawn irrigation system as part of the project. Wasser's objection was directed at the specification itself rather than channeled through the supervising engineer to the landscape architect through appropriate interdisciplinary coordination.
Interdisciplinary Specification Authority Deference Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained from treating the landscape architect's traditional irrigation specification as subject to unilateral override or as a basis for refusing to execute the assigned MEP-adjacent task, because the landscape architect held legitimate professional authority over the irrigation specification within their own scope of practice.
NSPE Code of Ethics; interdisciplinary professional authority norms
The project's landscape architect specifies a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort's golf course as part of the project.
Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work
Wasser Low-Probability High-Consequence Water Table Risk Disclosure Constraint
The hydrogeological study indicated the proposed irrigation use would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, potentially affecting communities dependent on that water source. Wasser was constrained to disclose this risk fully to the supervising engineer.
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained to disclose the hydrogeologically documented risk of water table lowering — a risk with potentially high consequences for historically underserved regional water users — to the supervising engineer with full consequence profile information, prohibiting omission or minimization of the risk on the basis of uncertainty about its probability.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Section I.1; hydrogeological study evidence
Goal 6 – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
Wasser NSPE Sustainable Development Code Application Capability Instance
NSPE Sustainable Development Code Provision Application Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated capability to identify and invoke NSPE Code III.2.d as normative support for the sustainability objection, applying the sustainable development provision to the specific irrigation system design context
Wasser applied NSPE Code III.2.d when preparing the formal memorandum objecting to the traditional irrigation system specification
Citation of NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d in the formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani as a basis for the sustainability objection
Wasser points to NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d, 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development,' and claims the proposed lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles
Wasser NSPE Sustainable Development Code Provision Application Resort
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated awareness of NSPE Code Section III.2.d and its sustainable development principles but required more refined capability to correctly apply the provision's normative weight and scope in the context of the resort irrigation assignment
Wasser invoked sustainability principles correctly as a basis for professional concern but needed more refined capability to apply the provision's normative weight correctly in determining the appropriate response
Wasser's citation of sustainability principles as grounds for objecting to the irrigation task, reflecting awareness of the provision but incomplete application of its 'encouraged' rather than mandatory character
Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.
This case engages the engineering profession's ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges.
This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer's right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical.
Wasser Personal Conviction Dissent Permissibility Boundary Irrigation Refusal
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to sketch irrigation system details and submitted a formal memorandum to Principal Jaylani; the BER found that while dissent is ethically permissible as personal conviction, it is not ethically obligatory and carries career consequences
Subordinate Refusal Proportionality Constraint
Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation system design task is permissible as a matter of personal conviction but is not ethically obligatory, and Wasser is constrained from characterizing the refusal as an ethical mandate when the applicable code provision (Section III.2.d) is encouraged rather than mandatory — and must accept the significant career consequences of exercising personal conviction over professional obligation.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d (encouraged sustainable development provision); BER analysis of present case
Throughout the period of Wasser's refusal to perform the assigned irrigation design task
refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory
Wasser Precedent Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases Sustainability
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser would have benefited from capability to identify and apply relevant BER precedents — including Cases 05-4, 07-6, and 15-12 — to correctly calibrate the ethical weight of sustainability considerations and the appropriate professional response in the resort irrigation context
Correct application of BER precedent would have helped Wasser understand that sustainability considerations inform but do not absolutely override professional judgment, and that the integrative path was the ethically preferred response
The BER's analysis drawing on Cases 05-4, 07-6, and 15-12 to establish the current professional standard for sustainability-informed engineering judgment, which Wasser needed to apply
Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER's perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter
In BER Case 15-12, Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering
Wasser SDG Alignment Assessment Capability Instance
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated capability to evaluate the proposed irrigation system against specific UN Sustainable Development Goals and articulate points of conflict with supporting normative citations
Wasser applied this capability when assigned to sketch irrigation system details for a resort golf course in a semi-arid region, identifying specific SDG conflicts and documenting them formally
Preparation of formal memorandum citing SDG Goals 6, 11, and 15 as frameworks against which the traditional lawn irrigation system was found deficient
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals including but not limited to Goal 6– Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, Goal 11– Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, and Goal 15– Protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems
Wasser Self-Interest Prohibition Sustainability Design Decision Constraint
Wasser's outright refusal to perform the task and assertion that Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work extended beyond permissible advocacy into conduct that attempted to override the client's and landscape architect's design authority through personal preference.
Self-Interest Prohibition in Client Design Decision Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained from using personal preference for sustainable design approaches to unilaterally override the client's and landscape architect's design selection decision — once Wasser had formally communicated sustainability concerns through the memorandum, the constraint required cessation of advocacy through task refusal and prohibited conduct that would constitute unilateral interference with the client's design authority.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.5.b; BER Case 22-10
After submission of formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani
Wasser Sustainability Code Provision Normative Weight Assessment
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated partial but incomplete capability to assess the differential normative weight of sustainability versus faithful agent provisions — correctly identifying a sustainability concern but incorrectly treating the encouraged sustainability provision as creating an absolute obligation sufficient to justify task refusal
Wasser needed to correctly assess that the sustainability provision's 'encouraged' language did not create an absolute obligation overriding the mandatory faithful agent duty, and that task refusal was permissible but not obligatory
Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation task, which reflected an overweighting of the encouraged sustainability provision relative to the mandatory faithful agent obligation
Wasser Sustainable Alternative Generation Resort Irrigation
Sustainable Alternative Generation Capability
Engineer Intern Wasser possessed the technical knowledge and sustainability expertise to generate viable sustainable alternatives to the traditional irrigation system — including rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and green infrastructure options — that could achieve the client's functional objectives with reduced environmental impact
BER identified Wasser as uniquely positioned to introduce sustainable irrigation alternatives to the resort client, leveraging his sustainability knowledge rather than simply refusing the task
Wasser's sustainability education and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, which the BER identified as positioning him to introduce sustainable alternatives to the client
given Wasser's education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client's needs.
Wasser Sustainable Alternative Presentation Opportunity
From BER identification of Wasser's unique position through potential client presentation of sustainable alternatives
the Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company
Sustainable Alternative Presentation Opportunity State
Engineer Intern Wasser's position relative to the irrigation system design assignment
Presentation of sustainable alternatives to client, followed by client decision
By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d
Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses
BER recognition that Wasser's sustainability expertise and positional access create an opportunity to present rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and other sustainable irrigation alternatives to the client
Wasser Sustainable Development Client Education Capability Instance
Engineer Intern Wasser demonstrated nascent capability to identify the need to educate the client about sustainable development alternatives, implicitly advocating through the formal memorandum that the client should be informed about the sustainability conflicts with the traditional irrigation system
Wasser's formal objection implicitly called for client education about sustainable irrigation alternatives as part of the sustainability advocacy
Assertion in the formal memorandum that Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work, implying the client should be advised about sustainable alternatives
Wasser Task Refusal and Formal Objection
From Wasser's initial refusal through resolution by Jaylani (reassignment, design change, or other action)
Engineer Intern Wasser's refusal to sketch irrigation system details and formal memorandum to Principal Jaylani
Not yet terminated — state is active and unresolved in the facts presented
Wasser asserts that Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work
Jaylani's assignment of irrigation system sketching task to Wasser, followed by Wasser's explicit refusal and formal memorandum
Wasser performing irrigation task with sustainable alternatives before client decision to accept or refuse sustainable options
Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client's agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned.
Wasser performing irrigation task with sustainable alternatives
client decision to accept or refuse sustainable options
What appeared to be a routine task assignment becomes a professional ethics conflict; Wasser's professional obligations and the task requirement are now in direct tension; the project's routine workflow is disrupted
Immediately following Irrigation Sketching Task Assignment
Upon receiving the irrigation sketching assignment, Engineer Intern Wasser's awareness of the recent hydrogeological study and NSPE Code III.2.d combined to produce an immediate professional ethical conflict, triggering his refusal and formal memorandum.
Wasser's assignment to sketch irrigation details before Wasser's refusal and formal memorandum to Jaylani
Engineer Jaylani assigns Wasser the task of sketching out details for the irrigation system. Wasser refuses to perform the task... In a formal memorandum to Jaylani, Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals.
Wasser's assignment to sketch irrigation details
Wasser's refusal and formal memorandum to Jaylani
Wasser's formal memorandum to Jaylani before Jaylani and Cutting Edge deciding how to respond
In a formal memorandum to Jaylani, Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals... Jaylani and Cutting Edge must then decide how to respond to Wasser's refusal and how to proceed with the client.
Jaylani and Cutting Edge deciding how to respond
addition of sustainable development provision III.2.d (July 2007) before BER Case 07-6
BER Case 07-6, the BER's first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
client refusal of sustainable options (hypothetical) before Cutting Edge completing the traditional irrigation system task
client refusal of sustainable options (hypothetical)
Cutting Edge completing the traditional irrigation system task
Defeasibility edge from tensionresolution
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.91
The tension is unresolved in the case facts — Jaylani must decide whether to engage the client and landscape architect about the sustainability concerns or require Wasser to proceed with the assignment
Defeasibility edge from constraintstatement
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.88
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were constrained to evaluate and communicate to the resort client when the landscape architect's specified irrigation approach conflicted with sustainability principles and posed a documented hydrogeological risk — prohibiting the firm from proceeding with implementation without first ensuring the client's decision-makers were fully informed of the sustainability and environmental risk dimensions, even though the client retained ultimate authority to proceed.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.87
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were constrained to escalate the hydrogeological risk identified in Wasser's memorandum to the resort client and landscape architect, despite the risk arising from a specification outside the firm's contracted MEP scope, because the credible technical evidence of water table depletion created a professional obligation to disclose that could not be avoided by reference to scope limitations.
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.92
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.87
In this context, environmental stewardship requires engineers to surface and formally object to design specifications that credible technical evidence shows will degrade shared natural resources, even when the specification originates from another licensed professional
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.85
Wasser prioritized public welfare over faithful agent obligations by refusing the task and formally documenting the concern, consistent with NSPE Canon 1's paramountcy of public welfare
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.88
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.9
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.87
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
In this context, public welfare extends beyond immediate project users to encompass the broader community's long-term access to groundwater resources, which the hydrogeological study identifies as threatened by the proposed irrigation system
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.89
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering are constrained to communicate to the resort client the hydrogeologically documented risk of water table lowering from the traditional irrigation system and the availability of sustainable alternatives, prohibiting the firm from proceeding with implementation of the traditional irrigation system without first ensuring the client's decision-makers are fully informed of the sustainability and environmental conflict.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.91
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to ensure that the documented risk of water table depletion — which could affect communities dependent on regional water sources in a semi-arid region — was not suppressed or ignored in favor of client convenience or contract execution, requiring that the risk be disclosed and addressed before proceeding with irrigation system design.
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.84
Wasser and Cutting Edge are constrained from treating the encouraged sustainable development provision (Section III.2.d) as a mandatory basis for refusing to design a traditional irrigation system that falls within the client's permissible design choice space — analogous to a client's choice not to pursue LEED certification — establishing that the absence of zoning, building code, or other legal restrictions places the irrigation system design within the space of client choice that engineers must respect.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.86
when that specification creates cross-disciplinary environmental and public welfare concerns within the MEP engineer's domain of knowledge, the MEP engineer retains standing to raise those concerns formally
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.85
Wasser is constrained to ground sustainability objections in established technical facts — specifically the hydrogeological study documenting water table risk — rather than expressing sustainability concerns as unverified personal preferences, prohibiting the presentation of sustainability objections without supporting technical evidence.
source_field=tensionresolution; confidence=0.86
Wasser's formal memorandum is an appropriate mechanism for raising cross-disciplinary concerns without unilaterally overriding the landscape architect's specification authority
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained to operate within the scope of the MEP engineering engagement at Cutting Edge Engineering — including the obligation to perform assigned tasks within that scope — while simultaneously being constrained not to use scope boundaries as justification for omitting safety-critical disclosures about the hydrogeological risk identified in the study.
source_field=balancingwith; confidence=0.87
Employer authority over work assignments
source_field=constraintstatement; confidence=0.83
Wasser and Cutting Edge are constrained from concluding that the faithful agent obligation (Section I.4) automatically supersedes the sustainable development encouragement (Section III.2.d) without first exploring whether an integrative solution — such as presenting sustainable irrigation alternatives — exists that honors both obligations simultaneously, prohibiting simplistic hierarchical resolution of the apparent code conflict.
Wasser and Cutting Edge are constrained to resolve the tension between the faithful agent obligation and the sustainable development encouragement by introducing and presenting sustainable irrigation alternatives to the client — such as rainwater harvesting, integrated water management, and stormwater management — rather than through task refusal or project withdrawal, establishing that the sustainability advocacy obligation is fulfilled through technical expertise and client education.
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained from treating NSPE Code Section III.2.d — an encouraged, non-mandatory provision — as a sufficient normative basis for outright refusal to perform the assigned irrigation system sketching task, because the provision's encouraged status limits its capacity to ground a mandatory professional obligation to refuse.
Engineer Intern Wasser was constrained to calibrate the intensity of their sustainability objection proportionately to the normative weight of NSPE Code III.2.d — an encouraged provision — and the severity of the identified harm, prohibiting the disproportionate response of outright task refusal and firm-wide withdrawal advocacy when the provision is non-mandatory and the harm, while real, does not constitute an immediate public safety emergency.
landscape architect specifying traditional irrigation system before Cutting Edge Engineering accepting the contract
The project's landscape architect specifies a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort's golf course as part of the project... Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind.
landscape architect specifying traditional irrigation system
recent hydrogeological study before Wasser's refusal and formal memorandum
Wasser refuses to perform the task and says the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water, cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table.
Engineer Intern Wasser proactively disclosed the risk of water table lowering identified in a hydrogeological study to Engineer Jaylani through a formal memorandum, rather than silently complying with the assignment or raising the concern o
Engineer Intern Wasser invoked public welfare by citing a hydrogeological study showing the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, framing the environmental impact as a threat to public access to water
Engineer Intern Wasser formally memorialized sustainability objections in a written memorandum to Engineer Jaylani, citing UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, 11, and 15, and NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d as the basis
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to sketch the traditional irrigation system and cited a hydrogeological study showing the proposed water use would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, invoking environmental stewardship as grounds for
Engineer Intern Wasser — an MEP engineer — objected to that specification on sustainability grounds, raising the q
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering, having received Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability and environmental concerns with the specified irrigation system, bear an obligation to identify and present alternative irr
Cutting Edge Engineering accepted the resort project contract including the landscape architect's irrigation system specification, creating a faithful agent obligation to execute the contracted MEP scope including irrigation system detailin
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to escalate the credible environmental risk identified in the hydrogeological study — that the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region — to Engineer Jaylani, even tho
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to formally communicate sustainability objections to Engineer Jaylani with supporting technical evidence when assigned the irrigation system sketching task, identifying the conflict with UN SDGs and NSPE
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to ground their sustainability objection in established facts and completed professional analysis — specifically the hydrogeological study — rather than expressing opinions based solely on general sustai
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to respect the landscape architect's professional authority over the irrigation specification by channeling the sustainability objection through Engineer Jaylani rather than treating the objection as a u
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into their analysis of the resort irrigation system — including presenting sustainable alternative irrigation
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to promptly disclose to the resort development client the risk of water table lowering identified in the hydrogeological study upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum, even befo
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to ensure that the resort irrigation system design adequately protected the regional water table — a shared public resource in a semi-arid region — including accounting for the cu
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to act as faithful agents and trustees of the resort development client — serving the client's legitimate interests in a successful, sustainable resort development — while simulta
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated, having received Wasser's formal memorandum with the hydrogeological study evidence, to notify the resort development client of the sustainability-environmental conflict — includi
Engineer Jaylani was obligated, upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks, to conduct a substantive review of the objection and the cited technical evidence, determine whether t
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to calibrate the form and intensity of their objection proportionately to the normative weight of the sustainability concern — recognizing that NSPE III.2.d uses 'encouraged' rather than mandatory langua
In BER Case 15-12, Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns.
It was the BER's position that Engineer A had 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.
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to ground the obligation to seek creative solutions balancing competing stakeholder interests
Cited to illustrate the BER's position that engineers must balance competing interests of all affected parties — including property owners, municipalities, and the public — and explore creative alternative solutions rather than defaulting to the greatest good for the greatest number calculus, relevant to sustainability and competing obligations analysis
Jaylani Cutting Edge Client Notification Sustainability Environmental Conflict Constraint
Engineer Jaylani received Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks. The constraint required Jaylani to communicate these findings to the resort client before proceeding with the irrigation system design.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Section I.4; BER Case 07-6; BER Case 22-10
Upon receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum with hydrogeological study evidence
Jaylani Cutting Edge Client Notification Water Table Sustainability Environmental Conflict
Engineer Intern Wasser submitted a formal memorandum with hydrogeological study evidence to Principal Jaylani identifying water table depletion risks; the BER found that Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation
NSPE Code Sections I.4, II.3.a, and III.2.d; BER Case 07-6
Prior to proceeding with traditional irrigation system design following receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum with hydrogeological study
Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Jaylani Cutting Edge Hydrogeological Risk Escalation MEP Scope Constraint
Cutting Edge Engineering's contracted scope was MEP work. The hydrogeological risk arose from the landscape architect's irrigation specification. Despite this scope boundary, the credible technical evidence of environmental harm required escalation to the client.
Hydrogeological Risk Escalation Beyond MEP Scope Constraint
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; Section I.1; BER Case 07-6
Wasser Cutting Edge Client Choice Space Permissible Design Constraint
The BER found that because the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions preventing installation of an irrigation system, providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible and not unethical — placing it within the space of client choice similar to LEED certification decisions
Encouraged vs Mandatory Code Provision Scope Constraint
NSPE Code Section III.2.d; BER analysis of present case
Throughout the project engagement and Wasser's refusal period
Wasser Cutting Edge Comprehensive Code Integration Faithful Agent Sustainability
Engineer Intern Wasser and Cutting Edge Engineering faced apparent conflict between faithful agent obligation and sustainable development encouragement; the BER found that endeavoring to integrate all code provisions is critical and that a solution honoring both obligations was available through sustainable alternative presentation
Comprehensive Code Integration Constraint
Throughout the project engagement and ethical tension resolution process
This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical.
Wasser Cutting Edge Sustainable Alternative Advocacy Ethical Tension Resolution
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to perform the irrigation design task; the BER found that the preferred ethical resolution pathway was to introduce sustainable alternatives to the client rather than refuse the task, leveraging Wasser's education and passionate beliefs about sustainable development
Prior to and during client presentation of design alternatives for the resort irrigation system
Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses.
Wasser Encouraged Provision Non-Mandatory Refusal Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to sketch irrigation system details and submitted a formal memorandum citing NSPE Code III.2.d as authority for the refusal, despite the provision being encouraged rather than mandatory.
At the time of task assignment and formal memorandum submission
Wasser points to NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d
Wasser Fact-Grounded Hydrogeological Study Sustainability Objection Constraint
Engineer Intern Wasser cited a hydrogeological study in the formal memorandum to Principal Jaylani as empirical evidence supporting the sustainability objection to the traditional irrigation system; the BER's analysis of BER Case 07-6 established that engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports and ground opinions in established facts
NSPE Code Section II.3.a (objectivity and truthfulness); BER Case 07-6
under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
Throughout the preparation and submission of the formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani
The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development.
Wasser Scope of Practice Boundary MEP Irrigation Constraint
Wasser was assigned to sketch irrigation system details within the MEP scope. The scope boundary constrained Wasser to perform that task while not preventing Wasser from raising the out-of-scope hydrogeological risk through appropriate channels.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Cutting Edge Engineering MEP contract scope
Wasser Subordinate Refusal Proportionality Sustainability Objection
Wasser both refused to perform the task and asserted that Cutting Edge should not do this kind of work at all — a firm-wide withdrawal advocacy that exceeded the proportionate response warranted by an encouraged, non-mandatory sustainability provision.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2.d; Section I.4; BER Case 22-10
At the time of task refusal and formal memorandum submission
NSPE Board of Ethical Review to demonstrate the post-2007 shift in sustainability ethics standards
Cited as the BER's first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision, establishing that engineers have an obligation to include environmental threat information (endangered species) in professional reports, marking a shift toward sustainability-informed professional judgment
Competing Duties Between Contract Execution and Sustainability Obligations
From receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum through resolution of the sustainability objection
Engineer Jaylani's simultaneous obligations to execute the contracted MEP scope (including landscape architect's irrigation specification) and to adhere to professional sustainability principles under NSPE Code III.2.d
NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d, 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development'
Wasser's formal memorandum documenting the conflict between the irrigation specification and sustainability standards, placing Jaylani in a position of competing professional duties
Environmental Resource Depletion Risk from Traditional Irrigation
From project specification through client decision on irrigation approach
One approach might be 'green' options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management
Environmental Resource Depletion Risk State
The potential water resource impact of a traditional lawn irrigation system in the project community
Client decision on irrigation system type following presentation of alternatives
sustainable development: '…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development'
Specification of a traditional irrigation system that draws on water resources without conservation measures, in a context where sustainable alternatives (rainwater harvesting, integrated water management) could reduce resource depletion
Irrigation System Assignment Permissible But Suboptimal
From task assignment through BER determination and client decision
the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system
Permissible But Suboptimal Design Assignment State
The traditional irrigation system design task assigned to Wasser at Cutting Edge Engineering
Client decision to proceed with traditional or sustainable alternative system following informed presentation
Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical
The facts do not support an engineer's required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic
such a project would lie within the space of 'client choice'
Landscape architect's specification of a traditional irrigation system in a community with no zoning or code restrictions prohibiting it
Jaylani Cutting Edge Public Safety Paramount Water Table Semi-Arid Constraint
The hydrogeological study indicated the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, potentially affecting communities dependent on that water source. The public safety paramount constraint required Jaylani to address this risk before proceeding.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; Section II.1.c; BER Case 07-6
Sustainability Standard Conflict in Irrigation Assignment
From Wasser's identification of the sustainability conflict through BER resolution
The tension between the traditional irrigation system specification and UN SDG sustainability principles as perceived by Wasser
BER determination that the task is not unethical and that sustainable alternatives should be presented rather than the task refused
engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations
this case engages the engineering profession's ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges
Wasser's assessment that designing a traditional irrigation system conflicts with UN Sustainable Development Goals and NSPE Code Section III.2.d sustainability provisions
Traditional Irrigation System Sustainability Conflict
From Wasser's initial refusal and formal memorandum through resolution of the specification dispute
Regional water table users and communities
Wasser argues the proposed lawn irrigation system is not consistent with several United Nations sustainable development goals including but not limited to Goal 6, Goal 11, and Goal 15
The landscape architect's specified traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort golf course
Wasser claims the proposed lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles
Wasser's formal memorandum to Jaylani alleging the irrigation system conflicts with UN SDGs and NSPE Code III.2.d, supported by a hydrogeological study
From Wasser's identification of the hydrogeological study through Jaylani's decision about client communication
Wasser cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
The hydrogeologically documented risk of water table lowering has been raised internally but not yet communicated to the resort client or landscape architect
Jaylani communicates the risk to the client and landscape architect, or client is otherwise informed
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract
Wasser's citation of the hydrogeological study in the formal memorandum to Jaylani, creating a known risk that has not yet been disclosed to the client
Wasser Subordinate Task Refusal on Sustainability Grounds
From Wasser's documented refusal through BER determination that refusal is permissible but not obligatory
Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a 'traditional' irrigation system
Engineer Intern Wasser's refusal to perform the irrigation system design task assigned by Cutting Edge Engineering
BER determination that Wasser should perform the task while presenting sustainable alternatives
As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge's position does not align with Wasser's view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser
Wasser's objection to designing a traditional irrigation system on sustainability grounds, citing UN SDGs and NSPE Code Section III.2.d
Jaylani Supervising Engineer Sustainability Objection Response
Engineer Jaylani received a formal memorandum from Engineer Intern Wasser identifying sustainability objections supported by a hydrogeological study; the case does not describe Jaylani's response, raising the question of whether the supervising engineer fulfilled this obligation.
Supervising Engineer Sustainability Objection Response Obligation
Engineer Jaylani was obligated, upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability conflicts and hydrogeological risks, to conduct a substantive review of the objection and the cited technical evidence, determine whether the concern required client notification or design modification, and communicate a reasoned response to Wasser.
Cutting Edge Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Engineer
{'firm_type': 'MEP engineering consulting firm', 'contract_status': 'Accepted contract with irrigation system specification', 'sustainability_role': 'Trustee obligated to share sustainable options with client'}
Cutting Edge Engineering accepted the resort project contract including the landscape architect's irrigation system specification, assigned the task to Engineer Intern Wasser, and bears obligations as faithful agent and trustee to complete the work while proactively offering sustainable alternatives to the client before deferring to client choice.
{'type': 'client_service', 'target': 'Resort Development Client'}
{'type': 'collaborates_with', 'target': 'Landscape Architect Specifier'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Wasser Engineer Intern'}
Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind
Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform
Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation
Historically Underserved Regional Water Access Impact
From identification of the hydrogeological risk through design resolution
Regional communities dependent on water table
a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
The semi-arid region's water table and the communities dependent on it, at risk from the proposed high-consumption irrigation system
Design modification eliminating the water table depletion risk, or regulatory determination
Hydrogeological study indicating the proposed irrigation use would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, threatening water availability for the broader region
Wasser Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Hydrogeological Study Citation
Wasser cited a specific hydrogeological study as the technical basis for the sustainability objection, grounding the opinion in factual evidence rather than unsupported assertion; this fulfilled the fact-grounded technical opinion obligation.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to ground their sustainability objection in established facts and completed professional analysis — specifically the hydrogeological study — rather than expressing opinions based solely on general sustainability preferences, and to include all relevant and pertinent technical information in the formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani.
At the time of preparing and submitting the formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani
Wasser Mandatory vs Encouraged Code Provision Tension
From Wasser's refusal of the irrigation design task through BER resolution of the case
Encouraged vs Mandatory Code Provision Tension State
Engineer Intern Wasser's professional obligations at Cutting Edge Engineering
BER determination that Wasser should present sustainable alternatives rather than refuse the task, harmonizing both provisions
This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer's right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical
Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code's ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles
Wasser's recognition that his mandatory faithful agent obligation (NSPE Code I.4) conflicts with his encouraged sustainable development obligation (NSPE Code III.2.d) in the context of the irrigation system assignment
Wasser Sustainable Development Advocate Engineer Intern
{'license': 'Engineer Intern', 'specialty': 'MEP / irrigation system design', 'sustainability_conviction': 'Strong personal belief in sustainable development principles', 'assigned_task': 'Traditional lawn irrigation system design'}
Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned to design a traditional irrigation system for a resort project in a semi-arid region, objected on sustainability grounds, and the BER analyzed whether refusal or proactive sustainable advocacy was the appropriate ethical response, concluding that advocacy and task performance with sustainable alternatives offered was the preferred path.
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Cutting Edge MEP Firm'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'MEP Firm Principal Engineer'}
Sustainability-Objecting Engineer Intern
given Wasser's education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client's needs
Water Table Depletion Risk from Irrigation Design
From identification of the hydrogeological study through design modification or regulatory determination
The proposed traditional lawn irrigation system's documented risk of lowering the regional water table in a semi-arid region
the project's landscape architect specifies a traditional lawn irrigation system for the resort's golf course as part of the project
the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water
Wasser's citation of a recent hydrogeological study indicating the proposed irrigation use would lower the water table
Cutting Edge Engineering Employer Relationship Role
{'firm_type': 'MEP engineering consulting firm', 'contract_scope': 'Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering for resort'}
Engineering firm serving as employer to both Engineer Jaylani (principal) and Engineer Intern Wasser, under contract for MEP work on the resort project, and the institutional entity whose conduct is questioned by Wasser's sustainability objection
{'type': 'contractor_to', 'target': 'Resort Development Client'}
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Intern Wasser'}
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Jaylani'}
Engineer Intern Wasser is a new employee at Cutting Edge
Proactive Risk Disclosure Obligation On Wasser Re Water Table
Resort client and broader affected community
Engineer Intern Wasser proactively disclosed the risk of water table lowering identified in a hydrogeological study to Engineer Jaylani through a formal memorandum, rather than silently complying with the assignment or raising the concern only informally
Proactive risk disclosure in this context required Wasser to formally communicate the identified environmental risk to the responsible decision-maker within the firm, grounded in technical evidence, before the risk materialized through project execution
Engineer Intern Wasser Sustainability-Objecting Engineer Intern
Wasser discharged the proactive disclosure obligation through the formal memorandum; the obligation to engage the client and landscape architect now falls on Jaylani as the responsible principal
Engineer Jaylani MEP Firm Principal Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (implied by firm principal status)', 'specialty': 'Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering', 'firm_role': 'Principal'}
Firm principal of Cutting Edge Engineering under contract for MEP work on a resort project; assigned irrigation system sketching task to Engineer Intern Wasser; recipient of formal sustainability objection memorandum from Wasser
{'type': 'recipient_of_objection', 'target': 'Engineer Intern Wasser'}
{'type': 'supervisor', 'target': 'Engineer Intern Wasser'}
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work for a new resort
In a formal memorandum to Jaylani, Wasser argues...
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Wasser Re Water Table
Water table depletion risk from traditional lawn irrigation in semi-arid southwestern US
Engineer Intern Wasser invoked public welfare by citing a hydrogeological study showing the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, framing the environmental impact as a threat to public access to water resources
Goal 6– Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
{'license': 'Engineer Intern (EI)', 'status': 'New employee', 'specialty': 'Not specified; assigned to irrigation system task'}
New engineer intern at Cutting Edge Engineering who refused to sketch irrigation system details on sustainability and environmental grounds, citing hydrogeological study, UN SDGs, and NSPE Code III.2.d in a formal memorandum to firm principal Jaylani
{'type': 'employed_by', 'target': 'Cutting Edge Engineering'}
{'type': 'objection_directed_to', 'target': 'Engineer Jaylani'}
{'type': 'supervised_by', 'target': 'Engineer Jaylani'}
Jaylani Cutting Edge Client Notification Sustainability Environmental Conflict
Cutting Edge Engineering received formal documentation from Engineer Intern Wasser identifying that the landscape architect's irrigation specification conflicted with sustainable development principles and posed a material environmental risk supported by a hydrogeological study; the firm's obligation to act as faithful agent and to hold public welfare paramount required client notification.
Client Notification of Sustainability-Environmental Conflict Obligation
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated, having received Wasser's formal memorandum with the hydrogeological study evidence, to notify the resort development client of the sustainability-environmental conflict — including the risk of water table lowering — and to present alternative design approaches, so that the client could make an informed decision about whether to modify the landscape architect's irrigation specification.
Following receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum and review of the hydrogeological study evidence
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering, having received Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability and environmental concerns
Jaylani Cutting Edge Environmental Stewardship Water Table Semi-Arid
The resort is located in a semi-arid region of the southwestern United States; a hydrogeological study indicated the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table; the water table constitutes a shared public resource analogous to a watershed requiring protection under the engineer's public welfare obligations.
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to ensure that the resort irrigation system design adequately protected the regional water table — a shared public resource in a semi-arid region — including accounting for the cumulative risk of water table lowering identified in the hydrogeological study, and to refrain from implementing a design known to cause such harm without client notification and consideration of alternatives.
Throughout the design phase, and specifically upon receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum identifying the hydrogeological risk
the resort that will be located in a semi-arid region of the southwestern United States
Jaylani Cutting Edge Timely Risk Disclosure Water Table Semi-Arid Region
A hydrogeological study cited by Engineer Intern Wasser indicated that the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region; this constituted a public welfare risk requiring timely disclosure to the client regardless of whether a complete alternative design was ready.
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to promptly disclose to the resort development client the risk of water table lowering identified in the hydrogeological study upon receiving Wasser's formal memorandum, even before a full alternative design analysis was complete, given the public welfare implications of water resource depletion in a semi-arid region.
Promptly upon receipt of Wasser's formal memorandum identifying the hydrogeological risk
Proactive Design Alternatives Obligation On Jaylani And Cutting Edge
Resort client irrigation system decision
Professional Scope and Interdisciplinary Boundary Respect
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering, having received Wasser's formal memorandum identifying sustainability and environmental concerns with the specified irrigation system, bear an obligation to identify and present alternative irrigation design approaches to the client and landscape architect, including discussion of the sustainability benefits and drawbacks of each option
The principle of proactive design alternatives presentation applies here because the specified design involves foreseeable environmental risks; Jaylani should facilitate a multi-party discussion of alternatives rather than either requiring Wasser to proceed or unilaterally refusing the contracted work
Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation for Public Safety
Presenting alternatives to the client and landscape architect respects client decision-making authority while fulfilling the engineering firm's obligation to surface and address foreseeable risks
Landscape architect's irrigation system specification
MEP engineer's contracted obligation to detail the specified system
The landscape architect specified the traditional lawn irrigation system within their professional domain of authority, while Engineer Intern Wasser — an MEP engineer — objected to that specification on sustainability grounds, raising the question of whether MEP engineers have standing to refuse to execute work derived from another licensed professional's specification
The landscape architect holds primary authority over irrigation system specification as part of the landscape design scope; however, when that specification creates cross-disciplinary environmental and public welfare concerns within the MEP engineer's domain of knowledge, the MEP engineer retains standing to raise those concerns formally
Sustainable Development Advocacy Invoked By Wasser Via Formal Memorandum
Traditional lawn irrigation system specification
Engineer Intern Wasser formally memorialized sustainability objections in a written memorandum to Engineer Jaylani, citing UN Sustainable Development Goals 6, 11, and 15, and NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d as the basis for refusing to sketch the irrigation system details
Wasser interpreted the NSPE's 'encouraged to adhere' language as sufficient normative basis to formally object to an assigned task, grounding the objection in both international sustainability frameworks and professional code provisions
Wasser chose formal documentation over silent compliance or unilateral abandonment, which is the appropriate procedural mechanism for raising sustainability concerns within a professional firm hierarchy
claims the proposed lawn irrigation system does not conform to sustainability principles
Traditional lawn irrigation system specification for resort golf course in semi-arid southwestern US
Engineer Intern Wasser refused to sketch the traditional irrigation system and cited a hydrogeological study showing the proposed water use would lower the water table in a semi-arid region, invoking environmental stewardship as grounds for objection
Wasser refuses to perform the task and says the traditional irrigation system will waste fresh water, cites a recent hydrogeological study indicating that the proposed use would lower the water table
Wasser resolved the tension by formally documenting the objection rather than silently complying, but the ultimate resolution requires Jaylani and the client to engage with the environmental evidence
Cutting Edge Engineering was contracted for MEP work on a resort in a semi-arid region; the landscape architect specified a traditional lawn irrigation system; Engineer Intern Wasser formally identified sustainability conflicts; the firm's obligation under NSPE III.2.d and the faithful agent trustee role required active consideration of sustainable alternatives.
Sustainable Development Integration Obligation
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into their analysis of the resort irrigation system — including presenting sustainable alternative irrigation approaches to the client — rather than defaulting exclusively to the traditional lawn irrigation system specified by the landscape architect, particularly given the semi-arid regional context and the hydrogeological evidence of water table risk.
Engineer Jaylani is a firm principal for Cutting Edge Engineering and is under contract to complete the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work for a new resort that will be located in a semi-arid region
Throughout the design phase, and specifically upon receipt of Wasser's formal sustainability objection memorandum
Wasser points to NSPE Code of Ethics Professional Obligation III.2.d, 'Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development'
Cutting Edge Engineering accepted the resort project contract including the landscape architect's irrigation system specification, creating a faithful agent obligation to execute the contracted MEP scope including irrigation system detailing
The client loyalty obligation requires Cutting Edge to execute contracted work diligently, but does not require execution of work that conflicts with professional ethics or public welfare obligations — the tension must be resolved through client engagement rather than unilateral refusal
Wasser Environmental Risk Escalation Water Table Hydrogeological Study
The landscape architect specified a traditional lawn irrigation system; Wasser identified a hydrogeological study showing the proposed water use would lower the water table, posing a public welfare risk in a semi-arid region, and escalated this concern to Jaylani through a formal memorandum.
Environmental Risk Escalation Beyond Scope Obligation
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to escalate the credible environmental risk identified in the hydrogeological study — that the proposed irrigation system would lower the water table in a semi-arid region — to Engineer Jaylani, even though the irrigation specification originated from the landscape architect outside Wasser's direct scope of work.
Upon discovery of the hydrogeological study findings and assignment of the irrigation sketching task
Wasser Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Respect Landscape Architect Specification
The landscape architect specified the traditional lawn irrigation system within their professional domain; Wasser objected on sustainability grounds and refused to implement the specification, raising the question of whether the refusal appropriately respected the landscape architect's professional scope while still fulfilling the environmental risk disclosure duty.
Interdisciplinary Scope Boundary Respect in Environmental Objection Obligation
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to respect the landscape architect's professional authority over the irrigation specification by channeling the sustainability objection through Engineer Jaylani rather than treating the objection as a unilateral authority to override the landscape architect's specification, while still fulfilling the duty to formally communicate the identified environmental risks.
At the time of assignment of the irrigation sketching task
Wasser Sustainable Development Advocacy Communication to Jaylani
Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned to sketch details for a traditional lawn irrigation system for a resort golf course in a semi-arid region; Wasser identified sustainability and environmental concerns supported by a hydrogeological study and memorialized them in a formal memorandum to Engineer Jaylani.
Sustainable Development Advocacy Communication Obligation
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to formally communicate sustainability objections to Engineer Jaylani with supporting technical evidence when assigned the irrigation system sketching task, identifying the conflict with UN SDGs and NSPE III.2.d and the hydrogeological risk to the water table.
Upon assignment of the irrigation sketching task and identification of the sustainability conflict
Wasser refused outright to sketch the irrigation system details and simultaneously issued a formal memorandum; the ethical basis (NSPE III.2.d) uses 'encouraged' language rather than mandatory prohibition, raising the question of whether outright refusal was proportionate to the normative weight of the obligation.
Engineer Intern Task Refusal Proportionality Obligation
Engineer Intern Wasser was obligated to calibrate the form and intensity of their objection proportionately to the normative weight of the sustainability concern — recognizing that NSPE III.2.d uses 'encouraged' rather than mandatory language — and to communicate concerns formally while remaining available to perform the task if Engineer Jaylani and the client made an informed decision to proceed, rather than issuing an outright refusal as the primary response.
Jaylani Cutting Edge Faithful Agent Sustainability Trustee Resort Client
Cutting Edge Engineering accepted the resort project contract including the landscape architect's irrigation system specification, creating a faithful agent relationship with the client; the firm's trustee role required balancing client service with public welfare obligations triggered by the hydrogeological risk evidence.
Engineer Jaylani and Cutting Edge Engineering were obligated to act as faithful agents and trustees of the resort development client — serving the client's legitimate interests in a successful, sustainable resort development — while simultaneously fulfilling the duty to hold public welfare paramount, including by presenting the client with complete information about the environmental risks of the specified irrigation system and available sustainable alternatives.
Throughout the project engagement, and specifically upon receipt of Wasser's formal sustainability objection
Client Loyalty — Cutting Edge Engineering accepted the resort project contract including the landscape architect's irrigation system specification, creating a faithful agent relationship