BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway
In BER Case 15-12, the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route
BER in analogical reasoning for Engineer K's case
Precedent addressing highway routing tradeoffs and disproportionate impact, establishing that engineers should think creatively beyond binary options (e.g., relocating a farmhouse rather than choosing between demolition or rerouting), applicable to Engineer K's analysis of flood control impacts on underserved communities
The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7, where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility with a system of solar panels
the engineer in BER Case 21-7 was obliged to include information about the potential for rolling blackouts
Analogous precedent where an engineer preparing a report on replacing fossil-fueled generation with solar panels was obligated to include information about potential power unreliability and battery storage costs, establishing the principle of complete and objective reporting of design alternatives
BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options
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
Precedent addressing sustainability tradeoffs between traditional lawn irrigation and sustainable alternatives, establishing that engineers should integrate all Code provisions and use sustainable options to educate and inform clients rather than simply deferring to client instructions
there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9)
One of several BER cases discussing highway routing and disparate impact, supporting the principle that there is not necessarily one correct answer and that engineers should be creative in developing solutions
CausalLink_Comprehensive City Council Pre
CausalLink_Disproportionate Impact Risk I
CausalLink_Dual Approach Design Framework
CausalLink_Omission of Hybrid Alternative
CausalLink_Post-Approval Implementation D
CausalLink_Stakeholder Meeting Facilitati
City Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
City Policy on Climate-Resilient Infrastructure Development
Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind.
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience
The project's goal is to create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability.
Engineer K during design alternative evaluation; City leadership during project approval
Establishes the formal policy framework directing Engineer K to evaluate design alternatives through a climate resilience and long-term sustainability lens, providing normative grounding for preferring the Sustainable Approach
City Climate Resilience Policy Regulatory Context
Throughout the project design and implementation phases
The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind
Engineer K's design obligations under City climate resilience policies
The project's goal is to create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability
City's formally adopted policies requiring climate-resilient infrastructure development
City Council presentation before City approval of Traditional Approach
City Municipal Infrastructure Client with Environmental Justice Obligations
{'entity_type': 'Municipal government', 'authority': 'Final selection authority over design alternatives', 'accountability': 'Public accountability to constituents for infrastructure decisions', 'relationship_to_engineer': 'Grants trustee discretion during design; receives faithful agent implementation post-decision'}
The City that hired Engineer K to design a flood control system, granting discretionary trustee authority during design phase, receiving complete engineering recommendations on traditional and sustainable alternatives, and bearing final decision-making authority and public accountability for the selected design approach.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'decision_authority', 'target': 'City Infrastructure Decision Authority'}
Municipal Infrastructure Client with Environmental Justice Obligations
Engineer K is hired by the City with a specific task in mind
If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee
These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions
Ultimately, Engineer K will present the design alternatives to the City decision makers so they can make a choice
City Refusal to Mitigate Underserved Community Risk
From City Council decision declining mitigation through Engineer K's continued implementation work
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach
Client-Approved Risk to Underserved Community State
Engineer K's continued project participation after City declines to mitigate identified disproportionate community risk
The City approves the Traditional Approach and Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation
concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further
reinforcing the low probability of such conditions occurring
City leadership explicitly decides not to address the identified floodwater diversion risk, citing low probability and schedule concerns
City Selection Inconsistent with Climate Resilience Policy
From City Council approval of Traditional Approach through project implementation
Engineer K's professional position following City's selection of Traditional Approach despite climate resilience policy
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies
City approves Traditional Approach despite Engineer K's presentation of its limitations relative to City's own climate resilience policies
City approval of Traditional Approach before implementation of Traditional Approach
Client Education Sustainable Options - Engineer K - Flood Control Design Phase
Engineer K's obligation to adhere to sustainable development principles was to be fulfilled by presenting the Sustainable Approach completely and educating the City on its advantages, not by refusing to design the Traditional Approach or withdrawing from the project if the City selected it.
Client Education Through Sustainable Options Constraint
Engineer K was required to fulfill the sustainable development integration obligation through complete presentation and client education about sustainable alternatives, and was prohibited from treating project refusal or withdrawal as a substitute for professional engagement on sustainability options.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d; BER Case 22-10
Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
During the design phase and presentation of alternatives to the City
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.
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.
Client Education Through Sustainable Option Presentation Invoked for Engineer K Advisory Role
Client education on long-term environmental benefits
Sustainable approach presentation to City
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Post-Decision Self-Interest Recusal Obligation
Engineer K's presentation of the sustainable approach to the City constitutes client education — informing a non-engineer client about options and their implications — which harmonizes the faithful agent obligation with sustainable development principles, consistent with BER Case 22-10's endorsement of sustainable option presentation as the ethically preferred path over refusal or withdrawal
Presenting sustainable options is not merely permitted but is the ethically preferred mechanism for resolving the tension between client loyalty and sustainable development principles — it serves the client's informed decision-making while fulfilling the engineer's professional obligation to sustainable development
Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation
Engineers should take the opportunity to educate clients.
Client education through option presentation resolves the tension between faithful agent and sustainable development obligations — the engineer fulfills both by presenting complete information rather than by either suppressing sustainable options (violating sustainability duty) or refusing the engagement (violating faithful agent duty)
BER Case 22-10 's discussion noted that Engineer Intern Wasser . . . 'could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives . . . , Wasser . . . can harmonize [Code sections] I.4 and III.2.d.'
Suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint - Engineer K - City Override of Flood Risk Mitigation
The City overrode Engineer K's disclosure of the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, citing low probability and schedule concerns. Engineer K then proceeded with implementation, creating tension between client loyalty and the paramount public safety obligation.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
When the City declined to address the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and approved the Traditional Approach, Engineer K was constrained by the priority rule establishing that public safety obligations take precedence over client fidelity, requiring Engineer K to assess whether continued project participation was consistent with the paramount public safety obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Fundamental Canon I; BER Case 84-5
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach, ultimately concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further and reinforcing the low probability of such conditions occurring.
Following City Council approval of the Traditional Approach without mitigation measures
The City approves the Traditional Approach and Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation.
Client Policy Alignment Constraint - Engineer K - City Climate Resilience Policy
The City had adopted climate resilience policies for new infrastructure, and the Traditional Approach conflicted with those policies. Engineer K was required to make this conflict explicit in professional communications before the City could make an informed decision to deviate from its own policy framework.
Engineer K was constrained to explicitly communicate to the City that the Traditional Approach conflicted with the City's own adopted climate resilience policies, prohibiting Engineer K from proceeding with implementation of a policy-misaligned design without ensuring that the City's decision-makers had been fully informed of and had consciously accepted the policy deviation.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d; City Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy; NSPE Code Section II.3.a
During design evaluation, reporting, and City Council presentation phases
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by Engineer K in Long-Term Capacity Analysis
Sustainable Approach green infrastructure design
Cost-Preference Community Stakeholder priorities
Engineer K evaluated and disclosed the Traditional Approach's lack of expandability and need for complete demolition if capacity proves insufficient under future flooding conditions, and the Sustainable Approach's capacity for ready expansion as climate conditions evolve
In this context, climate-informed design requires Engineer K to assess and disclose the long-term adaptability of each design alternative to evolving climate conditions, consistent with the City's explicit climate resiliency policy
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
The system does not provide for expandability should future flooding risk expand or increase and would require complete demolition and rebuilding if the capacity proved insufficient in the future.
Engineer K presented the climate resiliency trade-offs as part of the complete comparative analysis, enabling City leadership to make an informed decision with full awareness of long-term capacity risks
The natural aspects of this approach could readily be expanded if additional capacity is necessary should future flooding risk expand or increase.
Climate Resilience Design Alignment - Engineer K - City Resilience Policy
The City had adopted policies requiring climate resilience in new infrastructure, and Engineer K personally recognized that the Sustainable Approach better aligned with those policies.
Climate Resilience Design Alignment Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to evaluate both design alternatives against the City's adopted climate resilience policies and to communicate to the City when the selected Traditional Approach conflicted with or fell short of those policies, including its lack of expandability and high carbon footprint.
During the design phase and at the City Council meeting
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach to the City's leadership during a City Council meeting
Climate Resilience Policy Alignment - Engineer K - City Resilience Policy Evaluation
Climate Resilience Policy Alignment Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to evaluate both design alternatives against the City's adopted climate resilience policies and to identify that the Sustainable Approach aligned better with those policies than the Traditional Approach.
Applied during comparative analysis of Traditional and Sustainable Approaches against City climate resilience policy commitments.
Assessment that the Sustainable Approach aligns better with City policies and professional obligations to promote sustainability and resilience, and presentation of this alignment analysis at the City Council meeting.
Competing Flood Control Design Approaches
From initial design phase identification through City Council approval of Traditional Approach
Engineer K identifies two potential approaches, both of which could be successfully designed and implemented
Engineer K's evaluation of Traditional vs. Sustainable flood control approaches
City approves Traditional Approach at City Council meeting
Sustainable Approach: Develop a green infrastructure system
Traditional Approach: Build a concrete floodwall system
Engineer K identifies two technically viable but materially different design approaches during initial design phase
Competing Professional Duties on Public Disclosure
From City Council decision through Engineer K's continued implementation
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach to the City's leadership
Engineer K's tension between client authority, public safety obligations, and environmental justice duties after City declines mitigation
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue
City approves Traditional Approach and declines mitigation, placing Engineer K in tension between client directive and public safety/environmental justice obligations
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked by Engineer K at City Council Presentation
Comparative analysis of Traditional and Sustainable Approaches
Engineer K presented complete information about both design approaches — including cost, implementation timeline, environmental benefits, long-term sustainability, and flood risk to the underserved community — to City Council without unilaterally resolving the competing public goods of immediate protection, cost efficiency, environmental sustainability, and environmental justice
In this context, competing public goods balancing requires Engineer K to present all trade-offs fully and objectively to City leadership, preserving the City's decision-making authority over the political and social value trade-offs while ensuring the technical analysis is complete
Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach to the City's leadership during a City Council meeting.
Engineer K presented complete analysis and disclosed personal professional view while deferring the final decision to City Council as the appropriate institutional authority
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience, but recognizes competing priorities of cost, urgency, and long-term impact.
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked for Traditional vs Sustainable Flood Control Tradeoffs
Traditional vs. sustainable approach comparison
Environmental Justice as Engineering Design Obligation
Engineer K must present both the traditional approach (immediate flood protection, lower upfront cost, faster implementation) and the sustainable approach (long-term environmental benefits, community resilience, higher upfront cost) as legitimate public goods with genuine trade-offs, enabling City decision-makers to make an informed policy choice rather than having Engineer K resolve the conflict unilaterally
The competing goods framing — analogous to BER Case 21-7's solar panel reliability versus environmental benefit trade-off — requires Engineer K to present both approaches with their full implications, including reliability, cost, environmental impact, and community equity considerations
the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process
The competing goods balancing principle is resolved by ensuring complete presentation to decision-makers rather than by Engineer K unilaterally resolving the trade-off — the City officials bear democratic accountability for the policy choice
Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included.
Engineer K has identified two options for the City to consider—the traditional approach and the sustainable approach.
Ultimately, Engineer K will present the design alternatives to the City decision makers so they can make a choice.
Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis - Engineer K - City Council Presentation
Stakeholder Interest Balancing Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to synthesize and present competing stakeholder perspectives — including cost-preference community members, environmental advocates, and underserved community representatives — in a balanced and objective manner to the City's leadership.
Applied during stakeholder meeting facilitation and subsequent City Council presentation of comparative analysis.
Presentation of all available information about both approaches including stakeholder perspectives at the City Council meeting, reflecting input from both cost-preference commentors and environmental/community organizations.
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline.
However, other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits.
Complete Design Alternative Presentation - Engineer K - Traditional vs Sustainable Flood Control
Engineer K's professional report to the City was required to include all relevant and pertinent information about both flood control design alternatives, including the 15-year deterioration timeline of the Traditional Approach, the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, and the supplementary costs needed to address reliability concerns.
Engineer K was required to present both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach completely and objectively — including all advantages, disadvantages, costs, long-term performance risks, and disproportionate community impacts — prohibiting selective or incomplete presentation of either alternative.
During preparation and presentation of design alternatives report to the City and City Council
Per Code section II.3.a, they 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports . . . .'
the engineer in BER Case 21-7 was obliged to include information about the potential for rolling blackouts if a reliable generation alternative was not selected.
Completeness and Non-Selectivity Invoked by Engineer K in Comparative Design Analysis
Engineer K presented all available information about both design approaches — including risks, benefits, costs, environmental impacts, long-term limitations, and the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community — to City leadership without selectively omitting material information that might have favored one approach
In this context, completeness requires Engineer K to present all material information bearing on the design decision — including the politically sensitive environmental justice risk — rather than limiting the analysis to the technical performance characteristics the client was primarily focused on
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions
Engineer K fulfilled the completeness obligation by presenting all material information including the underserved community risk; the City then exercised its decision authority with full information
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions
Completeness and Non-Selectivity in Professional Advisory Opinions Invoked for Design Alternative Presentation
Engineer K must present both the traditional and sustainable flood control approaches completely, including all advantages and disadvantages of each, so that City decision-makers have the full information needed to make an informed choice
Completeness requires not merely listing both options but ensuring that each is presented with sufficient technical depth — including costs, reliability, environmental impacts, and community effects — that the City can make a genuinely informed decision
Completeness obligation is not in tension with faithful agent obligation here — presenting complete information serves both the client's decision-making needs and the engineer's professional duty
When reporting about their design, Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer K has an obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee, the faithful agent obligation is not unlimited and does not require Engineer K to suppress professional judgment entirely. The faithful agent role operates within the boundaries set by the paramount duty to protect public safety. Where the City's approved Traditional Approach carries a known, unmitigated disproportionate flood diversion risk to an underserved community, Engineer K's faithful agent obligation does not extend to silent acquiescence in the implementation of a design that foreseeably imposes high-consequence harm on a vulnerable population. The faithful agent role requires Engineer K to execute the City's decision competently and loyally, but it simultaneously requires Engineer K to continue advising the City of residual risks throughout implementation — not merely at the City Council presentation stage. Faithful agency, properly understood, is an ongoing professional relationship, not a one-time disclosure event followed by unconditional compliance.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer K has an ethical obligation as a faithful agent or trustee implicitly assumes that the City's decision to approve the Traditional Approach was a legitimate exercise of client authority within the scope of the professional engagement. However, a deeper analysis reveals a structural tension: the City's own climate resilience policy constitutes a pre-existing institutional commitment that the Traditional Approach may materially contradict. Engineer K's faithful agent obligation runs not only to the City's decision-makers at the moment of approval, but also to the City's own formally adopted policy framework. Where a client's ad hoc decision conflicts with the client's own governing policy, the faithful agent is not simply choosing between client authority and personal preference — the faithful agent is navigating a conflict within the client's own institutional commitments. Engineer K therefore had an obligation to formally document and communicate to the City, in writing, that the Traditional Approach as approved may be inconsistent with the City's climate resilience policy, so that the City's decision-makers could make a fully informed choice with explicit awareness of that institutional inconsistency. Presenting both options verbally at a City Council meeting does not fully discharge this obligation when the policy misalignment is material and the consequences are long-term.
The Board's faithful agent conclusion does not address the environmental justice dimension of Engineer K's post-approval obligations. The disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community is not merely a technical design risk that the City has evaluated and accepted on behalf of all affected parties — it is a risk that falls asymmetrically on a community that had no formal seat at the decision-making table and whose interests the City may not have adequately represented. Engineer K's obligation under the duty to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination creates an independent ethical obligation that runs parallel to, and is not fully subordinated by, the faithful agent obligation. Where the client's approved design foreseeably imposes disproportionate harm on a vulnerable population that was not meaningfully represented in the approval process, Engineer K's post-approval faithful agent role must be exercised in a manner that at minimum ensures the underserved community has meaningful notice of the residual risk. If the City refuses to provide such notice or to take any mitigating action, Engineer K faces a genuine ethical threshold question: whether continued implementation without further escalation constitutes passive participation in a discriminatory outcome. The faithful agent obligation does not resolve this question in favor of unconditional implementation.
The Board's faithful agent conclusion does not address whether Engineer K discharged the full scope of the pre-approval professional obligation by presenting only two binary alternatives — the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach — without formally exploring and proposing a hybrid design solution that might have specifically mitigated the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community at a cost lower than the full Sustainable Approach. The professional obligation to act as a faithful agent and trustee includes the obligation to bring the full range of professional competence to bear in service of the client's goals. Where Engineer K possessed the technical capability to assess hybrid design options, and where a hybrid solution might have resolved the most ethically significant deficiency of the Traditional Approach — its disproportionate impact on a vulnerable community — the failure to formally develop and present such an option before the City Council vote represents a gap in the pre-approval professional service. The City's binary choice was in part a product of the options Engineer K placed before it, and the ethical analysis of Engineer K's faithful agent obligation must account for the quality and completeness of the option set presented, not merely the completeness of the disclosure about the options that were presented.
The Board's faithful agent conclusion, read in conjunction with the objective and truthful reporting obligation, implies that Engineer K's personal belief that the Sustainable Approach is superior does not, by itself, create an ethical obligation to present only that approach — nor does it create an ethical prohibition on expressing that professional judgment. The critical distinction is between advocacy that is grounded in objective professional analysis and disclosed as such, versus advocacy that distorts or suppresses material information to steer a client decision. Engineer K's personal preference for the Sustainable Approach, when based on a genuine professional assessment of alignment with City policy, long-term infrastructure adequacy, and environmental justice considerations, is not self-interested advocacy within the meaning of the prohibition on influencing contract decisions for personal benefit. Engineer K was ethically permitted — and arguably obligated — to clearly communicate that professional judgment to the City, provided that the communication was grounded in fact, disclosed as professional opinion, and accompanied by complete and objective information about both approaches. The ethical failure would have occurred if Engineer K had suppressed the Traditional Approach entirely, or had misrepresented its characteristics, in order to steer the City toward the Sustainable Approach for reasons unrelated to objective professional analysis.
The Board's faithful agent conclusion does not resolve the question of what Engineer K's ethical obligations are after the City approves the Traditional Approach and refuses to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood risk. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer K to execute the City's decision, but it does not extinguish the independent obligation under the paramount duty to protect public safety. Where Engineer K has fully disclosed the risk, the City has explicitly refused to act, and the residual risk involves a low-probability but high-consequence harm to a vulnerable population with no meaningful capacity to protect itself, Engineer K's post-approval obligations include at minimum: (1) formally documenting in writing the identified risk and the City's refusal to mitigate, creating a professional record; (2) advising the City in writing that the Traditional Approach as approved may not be successful in equitably protecting all members of the public under high-volume flood conditions, consistent with the obligation to advise clients when a project will not be successful; and (3) evaluating whether the severity and irreversibility of the potential harm to the underserved community crosses the threshold that would require escalation to relevant public authorities or withdrawal from the project. The faithful agent obligation does not immunize Engineer K from these post-approval duties, and proceeding with implementation without taking these steps would represent an incomplete discharge of the full scope of Engineer K's professional ethical obligations.
Because Engineer K has entered into a contract to design the new flood water control system, Engineer K has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
In response to Q101: Engineer K's ethical obligation extended beyond simply presenting both options at the City Council meeting. Given that the City had an explicit climate resilience policy, Engineer K had an affirmative duty to formally document and communicate in writing to the City that the Traditional Approach may be materially inconsistent with that policy. A verbal presentation at a City Council meeting, while necessary, is insufficient when a client's decision conflicts with its own stated governing policy. Engineer K should have memorialized the policy conflict in a written professional report, creating a clear record that the City's decision was made with full awareness of the inconsistency. This obligation flows from the duty to be objective and truthful in professional reports and from the obligation to advise the client when a project may not be successful in meeting its stated long-term goals. Oral disclosure at a public meeting does not substitute for formal written documentation when the stakes involve long-term infrastructure adequacy and policy compliance.
In response to Q102: Engineer K bore a professional obligation to explore and formally propose a hybrid design solution before accepting the City's binary framing of the choice between the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches. The identification of a disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community created a specific, concrete harm that a targeted hybrid solution might have addressed at a cost premium far below the full Sustainable Approach. Engineer K's professional competence in flood control design, combined with the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public and the obligation not to discriminate in design impact, required more than passive presentation of two pre-defined alternatives. A professional engineer acting as a faithful trustee of the public interest should have exercised independent professional judgment to identify whether a third path existed that could satisfy cost constraints while eliminating or substantially reducing the identified environmental justice harm. The failure to formally propose a hybrid alternative before the City Council vote foreclosed an option that might have been acceptable to the City and represents an incomplete discharge of Engineer K's professional duty.
In response to Q103: After the City refused to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and approved the Traditional Approach, Engineer K's ethical obligations did not terminate with deference to the client's decision. The NSPE Code establishes that the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public supersedes the faithful agent obligation when those interests are in conflict. Where the identified risk involves a low-probability but high-consequence harm to a vulnerable population — specifically, catastrophic flood diversion to an underserved community under capacity-breach conditions — the magnitude and distributional inequity of the potential harm elevate the obligation beyond ordinary client deference. Engineer K should have formally notified the City in writing of the residual unmitigated risk following the City Council's decision, and if the City continued to refuse action, Engineer K would have been ethically obligated to consider escalation to relevant public authorities or regulatory bodies with jurisdiction over flood control and environmental justice. Continued implementation without any further protective action would place Engineer K in the position of knowingly executing a design that imposes foreseeable disproportionate harm on a community that had no meaningful voice in the decision, which is inconsistent with the duties of dignity, respect, fairness, and non-discrimination.
In response to Q104: The case facts do not establish that the underserved community most at risk from the Traditional Approach had meaningful representation or voice in the stakeholder meetings. The stakeholder division described in the record reflects organized community groups and environmental organizations on one side and cost-preference commentors on the other — neither of which is identified as representing the underserved community that would bear the disproportionate flood diversion risk. Engineer K had a professional obligation under the principles of dignity, respect, fairness, and non-discrimination to ensure that the stakeholder engagement process did not inadvertently privilege the preferences of more organized and resourced community groups while leaving the most directly affected and most vulnerable population without meaningful notice or participation. The failure to ensure equitable stakeholder representation is not merely a procedural deficiency; it has substantive ethical consequences because the City's decision to dismiss the flood diversion risk as low-probability was made without the input of the community that would bear that risk. Engineer K, as the professional directing the stakeholder process at the City's direction, bore responsibility for designing that process in a manner that affirmatively reached the affected underserved community.
In response to Q201: The tension between the faithful agent obligation and the paramount duty to protect public safety is resolved by the hierarchical structure of the NSPE Code itself. The duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is a Fundamental Canon that takes precedence over the faithful agent obligation, which is also a Fundamental Canon but is expressly subordinated when it conflicts with public safety. In this case, the known, unmitigated disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community is not a speculative or de minimis concern — it is an identified, professionally assessed risk that the City chose to dismiss on grounds of low probability and project schedule. Engineer K's post-approval obligation was therefore not simply to execute the City's decision without further action, but to continue to advocate through legitimate professional channels for mitigation, to formally document the unmitigated risk in writing, and if necessary, to consider whether the magnitude of the residual harm required escalation beyond the client. The faithful agent obligation does not require an engineer to become an instrument of foreseeable harm to a vulnerable population.
In response to Q202: Engineer K's personal belief that the Sustainable Approach is superior does not, by itself, create an ethical violation, provided that Engineer K's professional presentation remained objective, complete, and fact-grounded. The NSPE Code requires objectivity and truthfulness in professional reports and prohibits engineers from using their professional position to improperly influence contract decisions for self-interested reasons. However, expressing a professionally grounded opinion in favor of one design alternative — when that opinion is based on documented technical analysis, alignment with client policy, and long-term infrastructure adequacy — is not the same as improperly influencing a contract award. The ethical boundary is crossed only if Engineer K suppressed material information about the Traditional Approach, overstated the benefits of the Sustainable Approach beyond what the evidence supported, or used the professional relationship to pressure the City toward a particular outcome for reasons unrelated to the client's interests. On the facts presented, Engineer K presented both approaches with their respective risks and benefits, which satisfies the objectivity obligation. Engineer K's personal preference, when disclosed transparently and grounded in professional analysis, is a legitimate component of professional judgment rather than an improper advocacy.
In response to Q301 (deontological analysis): From a deontological perspective, Engineer K did not fully discharge the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by proceeding to implement the Traditional Approach after the City refused to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood risk. Deontological ethics, particularly in the Kantian tradition, requires that moral duties be honored regardless of consequences and that persons — including members of the underserved community — never be treated merely as means to an end. The City's decision to dismiss the flood diversion risk on grounds of project schedule and low probability effectively treated the underserved community as an acceptable externality of a cost-driven infrastructure decision. Engineer K, by continuing implementation without further escalation or formal written protest, became a participant in that treatment. A deontologically rigorous application of the paramount safety duty would have required Engineer K to take additional affirmative steps — formal written notification, escalation to public authorities, or in the most serious case, withdrawal from the project — rather than treating the City's override as a complete discharge of the professional obligation. The duty to protect the public is not satisfied merely by disclosure when the disclosed risk remains unmitigated and the engineer continues to implement the design that creates it.
In response to Q302 (consequentialist analysis): From a consequentialist perspective, the City's approval of the Traditional Approach does not clearly produce the best overall outcome when the full range of consequences is properly weighted. The lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline represent near-term, quantifiable benefits that are visible and politically salient. However, the consequentialist calculus must also account for: the high probability of significant repair or upgrade costs within 15 years; the complete demolition and rebuilding cost if capacity proves insufficient; the absence of expandability as climate-driven flood risk increases; the long-term environmental and biodiversity costs of the high-carbon concrete system; and critically, the low-probability but high-consequence catastrophic flood harm to the underserved community. When the harm to the underserved community is properly weighted — accounting for both the severity of the harm and the vulnerability of the population that would bear it — the consequentialist case for the Traditional Approach weakens considerably. A rigorous consequentialist analysis would likely conclude that the expected value of the Traditional Approach, properly accounting for all costs and all affected parties over the infrastructure lifecycle, is inferior to the Sustainable Approach or a well-designed hybrid solution, and that the City's decision reflected a truncated cost analysis that systematically underweighted long-term and distributional consequences.
In response to Q303 (virtue ethics analysis): From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer K demonstrated meaningful professional integrity and moral courage by fully disclosing the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community during the City Council presentation, even when the City's leadership chose to dismiss the concern. The virtuous engineer does not suppress inconvenient findings to preserve client relationships or project timelines, and Engineer K's decision to present the risk despite knowing it might complicate or delay the project reflects the virtues of honesty, professional courage, and fidelity to the public interest. However, virtue ethics also demands practical wisdom — the capacity to discern what the situation requires and to act accordingly with appropriate persistence. On this dimension, Engineer K's conduct after the City's refusal to mitigate is less clearly virtuous. A fully virtuous professional would not have treated the City's override as the end of the ethical inquiry, but would have continued to press for mitigation through formal written channels, explored hybrid solutions proactively, and ensured that the affected community had meaningful notice and voice. Virtue ethics thus supports Engineer K's pre-approval conduct while suggesting that the post-approval implementation without further escalation fell short of the full measure of professional virtue the situation demanded.
In response to Q304 (deontological duty conflict): From a deontological perspective, when the faithful agent duty to execute the City's approved Traditional Approach conflicts with the categorical duty not to discriminate and to treat all persons with dignity and fairness, the non-discrimination duty should take precedence in Engineer K's post-approval conduct. The faithful agent obligation is a relational duty owed to the client, but it is expressly bounded by the paramount duty to protect the public and by the non-discrimination principle, which is categorical in character — it does not admit of exceptions based on client preference, project economics, or probability assessments. A design that foreseeably imposes disproportionate catastrophic harm on a community defined by its socioeconomic vulnerability cannot be ethically executed without further protective action simply because the client has approved it. The deontological resolution is not necessarily that Engineer K must withdraw from the project, but that Engineer K must continue to discharge the non-discrimination duty through all available legitimate channels — formal written protest, escalation to public authorities, and documentation of the unmitigated risk — even while executing the client's approved design. The faithful agent role does not transform Engineer K into an instrument of discriminatory harm.
In response to Q402: If Engineer K had presented only the Sustainable Approach to the City — omitting the Traditional Approach entirely on the grounds of personal professional preference and alignment with City climate resilience policy — Engineer K would have violated both the faithful agent obligation and the duty to provide objective and truthful professional reporting. The City, as the client and the democratically accountable decision-maker for public infrastructure, had the right to make an informed choice between legitimate design alternatives. Engineer K's role was to provide complete, objective information to enable that informed decision, not to pre-filter the options available to the client based on personal preference. Even where Engineer K's preference was professionally grounded and aligned with City policy, unilaterally withholding a viable design alternative would have deprived the City of the information necessary to exercise its decision-making authority. This would have constituted a form of professional paternalism inconsistent with the faithful agent role. The ethical path — which Engineer K appears to have followed — was to present both alternatives completely and objectively while transparently communicating the professional judgment that the Sustainable Approach better aligned with City policy and long-term goals.
In response to Q403: If Engineer K had formally notified the City in writing after the City Council's approval that the Traditional Approach as approved would not equitably protect all members of the public under high-volume flood conditions, and the City still refused to act, Engineer K would have faced a genuine ethical threshold decision. The written notification would have discharged the obligation under the duty to advise the client when a project will not be successful and the duty to document professional concerns in objective written reports. If the City's continued refusal left the identified disproportionate harm to the underserved community entirely unmitigated, Engineer K would then have been obligated to assess whether the magnitude and distributional character of the residual risk — catastrophic flood harm to a vulnerable population — crossed the threshold requiring escalation to relevant public authorities. Withdrawal from the project would be an option of last resort, appropriate only if escalation failed and continued participation would make Engineer K complicit in knowingly executing a design that imposed foreseeable catastrophic harm on an unprotected community. The ethical framework does not require immediate withdrawal upon client override, but it does require that Engineer K exhaust legitimate escalation channels before treating continued implementation as ethically permissible.
In response to Q404: If the underserved community had been formally represented as a stakeholder in the City Council meeting and had been made explicitly aware of the low-probability but high-consequence flood diversion risk before the vote, the City's decision-making process would have been substantially more ethically defensible, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Procedural legitimacy in public infrastructure decisions requires that those who bear the greatest risk have meaningful notice and opportunity to participate. The absence of the underserved community from the documented stakeholder process is a significant procedural and ethical deficiency. Engineer K bears partial responsibility for this gap because the stakeholder engagement process was conducted at the City's direction but under Engineer K's professional facilitation. The duty to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination encompasses not only the design outcomes but also the process by which affected communities are engaged. A professionally and ethically adequate stakeholder process would have affirmatively identified the underserved community as the population most directly at risk from the Traditional Approach and would have taken specific steps to ensure their meaningful participation, including accessible meeting formats, translated materials if necessary, and direct outreach to community representatives. Engineer K's failure to flag this gap in the stakeholder process to the City represents an incomplete discharge of the equitable engagement obligation.
The case reveals a structured hierarchy among Engineer K's competing duties: public safety and welfare occupy the apex, followed by non-discrimination and equitable treatment, followed by sustainable development principles, and finally the faithful agent obligation to the City. This hierarchy was only partially resolved in the case. Engineer K correctly discharged the public safety duty by fully disclosing the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community during the City Council presentation, satisfying the paramount obligation under Canon I.1. However, the case leaves unresolved whether that disclosure alone was sufficient once the City refused to act, or whether the paramountcy of public safety required Engineer K to escalate beyond the client — to a relevant regulatory authority or the public — before proceeding with implementation. The faithful agent obligation under Canon I.4 does not override public safety; it operates within the space that public safety leaves available. Where the City's approved design carries a known, unmitigated, disproportionate risk of serious harm to a vulnerable population, the faithful agent role cannot serve as a shield against further professional responsibility. The case teaches that faithful agency is a bounded duty, not an absolute one, and that its limits are defined by the engineer's non-delegable obligation to hold public welfare paramount.
The tension between Engineer K's personal professional preference for the Sustainable Approach and the duty to provide objective and truthful reporting was resolved correctly, but only because Engineer K presented both approaches with full comparative information rather than suppressing or subordinating the Traditional Approach. Canon II.3.a requires that professional reports be objective and truthful and that they include all relevant and pertinent information. This provision operates as a constraint on advocacy: Engineer K's genuine belief that the Sustainable Approach was superior did not authorize selective presentation of information designed to steer the City toward that outcome. At the same time, Canon II.5.b's prohibition on using professional influence to affect contract decisions in a self-interested manner reinforces that Engineer K's role in the City Council presentation was to inform, not to advocate. The case teaches that an engineer's personal professional judgment — even when well-founded and aligned with applicable policy — must be expressed through complete and balanced disclosure rather than through informational gatekeeping. The appropriate channel for Engineer K's professional opinion was explicit, clearly labeled professional recommendation within a complete comparative report, not selective omission of the alternative the engineer disfavored.
The case exposes an unresolved tension between the faithful agent obligation and the non-discrimination principle when a client's approved design foreseeably imposes disproportionate harm on an underserved community. Canon III.1.f requires that engineers treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination. When the Traditional Approach's design capacity is breached under high-volume flood conditions, the harm does not fall randomly across the urban area — it falls disproportionately on a specific, identifiable, underserved community. This is not merely a general public safety risk; it is a foreseeable inequitable distribution of risk along lines that implicate non-discrimination principles. The faithful agent obligation under Canon I.4 requires Engineer K to execute the City's approved decision, but it does not require Engineer K to treat that decision as ethically complete or to remain silent about its discriminatory distributional consequences. The case teaches that where a client's approved design produces foreseeable disproportionate harm to a protected or vulnerable population, the non-discrimination principle functions as an independent, post-approval obligation — not merely a design-phase consideration — and may require Engineer K to formally document the inequitable risk distribution in writing to the City, and potentially to escalate to relevant authorities if the City continues to refuse mitigation. The faithful agent role cannot be interpreted to require an engineer to become an instrument of discriminatory harm by silent implementation.
The case illustrates that the sustainable development principle under Canon III.2.d and the project success notification obligation under Canon III.1.b together create a compound advisory duty that persists after client approval and is not extinguished by the faithful agent role. The Traditional Approach's known limitations — high carbon footprint, susceptibility to deterioration within 15 years, absence of expandability, and incompatibility with the City's own climate resilience policy — collectively constitute grounds for Engineer K to formally advise the City that the approved design may not be successful in meeting the project's stated long-term goals. This advisory duty is not merely a design-phase obligation; it survives the City Council vote and attaches to Engineer K's post-approval implementation role. The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer K to execute the City's decision, but Canon III.1.b independently requires Engineer K to advise the client when a project will not be successful. These two obligations are not mutually exclusive: Engineer K can simultaneously implement the approved design and formally document in writing that the design, as approved, is inconsistent with the City's climate resilience policy and carries foreseeable long-term inadequacy risks. The case teaches that faithful agency and candid professional advisory are complementary, not competing, duties — and that an engineer who proceeds silently with implementation of a policy-inconsistent design, without formally documenting the inconsistency, has not fully discharged the compound obligation that these two provisions together create.
Confirmed Floodwater Diversion Risk Without Mitigation
From City Council decision declining mitigation through project implementation
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Engineer K's professional situation after full disclosure and client refusal to mitigate identified floodwater diversion risk
Engineer K presents identified risk to City Council; City explicitly declines to implement protective measures
{'advocacy_position': 'Traditional Approach (concrete floodwall)', 'rationale': 'Lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline'}
Community members who participated in stakeholder meetings and expressed preference for the Traditional Approach due to lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline.
{'type': 'stakeholder_input_to', 'target': 'Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'stakeholder_input_to', 'target': 'The City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline
Creative Solution Generation Obligation Invoked for Binary Alternative Expansion
Design alternative analysis for City Council
Hybrid traditional-sustainable design alternatives
Underserved community flood risk mitigation
Engineer K is obligated to move beyond the binary choice between traditional and sustainable approaches to consider hybrid combinations — such as traditional infrastructure for primary flood control combined with sustainable provisions specifically in the underserved community — that reduce disproportionate impacts while addressing cost and timeline concerns
The obligation to think creatively beyond binary alternatives is framed as incumbent on Engineer K — a professional duty, not merely an optional enhancement — analogous to the BER's encouragement in BER Case 15-12 to consider farmhouse relocation as a third option beyond demolition or route change
Creative Solution Generation Obligation in Disproportionate Impact Scenarios
This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team when considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community.
Creative hybrid solutions are presented as a mechanism to reduce the tension between cost preferences and environmental justice concerns, rather than forcing a binary choice that necessarily disadvantages one community
For example, analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate the risk if a portion of the traditional system does not work.
In BER Case 15-12 , the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated?
The take aways from these cases are there is not necessarily one correct answer, and that engineers should be creative when looking at solutions.
After the City Council approves the Traditional Approach and refuses to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, how should Engineer K discharge the faithful agent obligation while honoring the paramount duty to protect public safety and the non-discrimination principle?
Engineer K's faithful agent obligation to the City and its limits when implementing the City-approved Traditional Approach that carries a known, unmitigated disproportionate flood risk to an underserved community
Formally document the unmitigated disproportionate flood risk in writing to the City, advise in writing that the approved design may not equitably protect all members of the public, and evaluate whether escalation to relevant public authorities or regulatory bodies is required given the magnitude and distributional inequity of the residual harm
Defer entirely to the City Council's approved decision and proceed with implementation of the Traditional Approach without further written documentation, advisement, or escalation, treating the prior verbal disclosure at the City Council meeting as a complete discharge of all post-approval professional obligations
Was Engineer K obligated to explore and formally propose a hybrid design solution combining targeted elements of the Sustainable Approach specifically to mitigate the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, rather than limiting the City's choice to a binary selection between the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches?
Engineer K's obligation to explore and formally propose a hybrid design solution that could mitigate the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community before accepting the City's binary framing of the design choice
Develop and formally present a hybrid design solution incorporating targeted sustainable elements specifically to mitigate the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, with full cost, risk, and benefit analysis, before the City Council vote — expanding the option set beyond the binary Traditional vs. Sustainable framing
Present only the two client-defined design alternatives — Traditional and Sustainable — completely and objectively to the City Council without independently developing or proposing a hybrid solution, treating the binary framing as the authorized scope of the professional engagement
Did Engineer K fulfill the obligation to provide objective and truthful professional reporting by presenting both design alternatives completely at the City Council meeting, and did Engineer K have an additional affirmative duty to formally document in writing the Traditional Approach's material inconsistency with the City's adopted climate resilience policy beyond the verbal City Council presentation?
Engineer K's obligation to objectively and completely present both design alternatives — including formal written documentation of the Traditional Approach's inconsistency with the City's climate resilience policy and its long-term infrastructure risks — versus the risk of suppressing the Traditional Approach based on personal professional preference for the Sustainable Approach
Present both design alternatives completely and objectively at the City Council meeting and additionally produce a formal written professional report documenting the Traditional Approach's material inconsistency with the City's adopted climate resilience policy, its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and long-term infrastructure adequacy risks — creating a clear professional record that the City's decision was made with full awareness of these institutional and technical concerns
Present only the Sustainable Approach to the City Council, omitting the Traditional Approach entirely on the grounds of personal professional preference and alignment with the City's climate resilience policy, treating the policy alignment as sufficient justification to pre-filter the options available to the client
Present both design alternatives verbally at the City Council meeting with full comparative information and treat that verbal presentation as a complete discharge of all reporting, policy alignment, and long-term risk communication obligations — without producing any formal written documentation of the policy inconsistency or long-term infrastructure risks
Before accepting the City's binary choice between the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches, was Engineer K obligated to formally explore and propose a hybrid design solution that would mitigate the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, and to ensure that community had meaningful representation in the stakeholder process?
Engineer K Non-Discrimination and Hybrid Solution Obligation: Pre-Approval Duty to Explore Third-Path Design and Ensure Equitable Stakeholder Representation
Formally develop and present a hybrid design alternative targeting mitigation of the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, and affirmatively design the stakeholder process to ensure that community has meaningful notice and participation before the City Council vote
Present only the two client-scoped design alternatives to the City Council and conduct the stakeholder process as directed by the City without independently seeking to expand representation of the underserved community
After the City approves the Traditional Approach and refuses to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community, is Engineer K obligated to formally document the unmitigated risk in writing, advise the City that the approved design may not be successful in equitably protecting all members of the public, and evaluate whether the magnitude of the residual harm requires escalation to relevant public authorities?
Engineer K Post-Approval Obligations: Formal Written Documentation, Project Success Notification, and Escalation Threshold After City Refuses to Mitigate Disproportionate Flood Risk
Formally document in writing the unmitigated disproportionate flood risk and the City's refusal to act, advise the City in writing that the approved design may not be successful in equitably protecting all members of the public and may conflict with the City's climate resilience policy, and evaluate whether the residual harm requires escalation to relevant public authorities or regulatory bodies
Defer to the City's approved decision and proceed with implementation of the Traditional Approach without further written documentation, advisement, or escalation, treating the City Council presentation disclosure as a complete discharge of all post-approval professional obligations
Given Engineer K's personal belief that the Sustainable Approach is superior and its alignment with the City's climate resilience policy, should Engineer K have presented only the Sustainable Approach to the City Council, or was Engineer K obligated to present a complete comparative report of both alternatives while transparently communicating a professionally grounded preference?
Engineer K Objective Reporting and Professional Judgment Expression: Balancing Complete Comparative Presentation Against Personal Preference for the Sustainable Approach
Present a complete comparative report of both the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches with full risk and benefit disclosure, and transparently communicate a professionally grounded preference for the Sustainable Approach as a clearly labeled professional recommendation within that complete report
Present only the Sustainable Approach to the City Council, omitting the Traditional Approach on the grounds of personal professional preference and alignment with the City's climate resilience policy
Disclosure Obligation - City Municipal Infrastructure Client - Environmental Justice Risk
The City received Engineer K's disclosure of the disproportionate community risk and made a decision not to address it, citing low probability and project delay concerns.
The City, as a municipal infrastructure client with adopted environmental justice and climate resilience obligations, was obligated to ensure that the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community was disclosed to and considered by all relevant decision-makers, including the City Council, before approving the Traditional Approach.
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach, ultimately concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further and reinforcing the low probability of such conditions occurring
At the City Council meeting and in the decision-making process for design selection
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Framework - Flood Control
BER Analytical Framework for Addressing Disproportionate Infrastructure Impacts on Underserved Communities
Disproportionate Impact Analysis Framework
The BER next turns to how Engineer K should address disproportionate impact
analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate the risk
BER in analysis; Engineer K in design development
Applied by the BER to guide Engineer K's analysis of how flood control design alternatives may disproportionately affect underserved communities, encouraging creative hybrid solutions
Disproportionate Impact Assessment - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Diversion
Environmental Justice Awareness Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to identify that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume capacity exceedance conditions.
Applied during design phase analysis of Traditional Approach flood control system, leading to disclosure at City Council meeting.
Discovery and disclosure that the Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to an underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions, particularly if design capacity is breached.
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions—particularly if the design capacity of the Traditional Approach is breached.
Disproportionate Impact Risk Identification
Disproportionate Impact Risk Identification (Action 3) → Mitigation Concern Formally Rejected (Event 5)
Disproportionate Underserved Community Flood Risk
From Engineer K's discovery of the risk through project implementation
Historically Underserved Community Impact State
Underserved community's exposure to disproportionate floodwater diversion under Traditional Approach
Not terminated within the case facts; City declines mitigation and approves Traditional Approach
Engineer K discovers that Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions
Dual Approach Design Framework (Action 1) → Hybrid Alternative Option Foreclosed (Event 7)
Engineer K Client-Approved Risk to Underserved Community State Instance
From identification of disproportionate impact risk through City's design decision and subsequent project execution
The BER next turns to how Engineer K should address disproportionate impact.
Engineer K's obligation regarding disproportionate flood impact on underserved community under the traditional design approach
City's formal design selection incorporating or rejecting mitigation measures for the underserved community
analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate the risk if a portion of the traditional system does not work
Engineer K's analysis revealing that the traditional flood control approach may disproportionately direct floodwaters toward an underserved community if a portion of the system fails
Engineer K Client Relationship with City
From initial hiring through project implementation
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system
Engineer K's professional engagement with the City
City hires Engineer K to design the flood control system
Engineer K Competing Design Approaches State Instance
From identification of traditional and sustainable design options through presentation to City decision makers
Engineer K's design development for the City's flood control system
City's formal selection of one design approach
Engineer K's technical analysis identifying two viable flood control design approaches with materially different cost, sustainability, resilience, and risk profiles
Engineer K Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis City Council Presentation
Competing Stakeholder Interest Synthesis Capability
Engineer K was required to apply competing stakeholder interest synthesis capability to receive and synthesize input from cost-preference community members, environmental advocates, and underserved community representatives, and to present a balanced, objective synthesis of those competing perspectives to the City Council in a manner that accurately represented the full range of stakeholder positions.
City Council presentation phase where Engineer K was obligated to synthesize and accurately represent competing stakeholder perspectives from the public engagement process without privileging any single group's preferences.
Engineer K's obligation to present all stakeholder perspectives — including cost-preference commentors, environmental advocates, and underserved community representatives — objectively and completely in the City Council presentation, consistent with Code section II.3.a requiring inclusion of all relevant and pertinent information.
Engineer K Complete Comparative Presentation Traditional vs Sustainable Flood Control
Engineer K identified two design alternatives — traditional and sustainable — for the City's new flood control system and was required to present both completely to City decision-makers.
Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to present both the traditional and sustainable flood control design alternatives completely and objectively to the City, including all advantages, disadvantages, cost tradeoffs, long-term risks, sustainability implications, and disproportionate impact on the underserved community.
During design phase and at presentation to City Council decision-makers
Engineer K Creative Hybrid Solution Design Flood Control
Creative Hybrid Solution Design Capability
Engineer K was required to apply creative hybrid solution design capability to move beyond the binary of Traditional Approach versus Sustainable Approach and explore combinations — such as using the Traditional Approach for rapid flood control while incorporating sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate disproportionate risk.
Flood control system design phase where Engineer K identified disproportionate flood risk to underserved community under Traditional Approach and was obligated to explore creative hybrid solutions before presenting alternatives to City Council.
BER analysis directing Engineer K to consider whether some combination of the traditional approach with sustainable provisions in the underserved community could mitigate risk if a portion of the traditional system does not work, drawing on BER Case 15-12 farmhouse relocation analogy.
In BER Case 15-12, the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated?
Engineer K Creative Hybrid Solution Exploration Underserved Community Flood Risk
The traditional approach posed disproportionate flood risk to a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions; the BER encouraged creative thinking analogous to the farmhouse relocation example in BER Case 15-12.
Creative Third-Path Solution Exploration Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to explore and present creative hybrid or third-path solutions — such as combining the traditional approach with sustainable provisions specifically in the underserved community — rather than limiting analysis to a binary choice between the traditional and sustainable approaches, given the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community under the traditional approach.
During design development and alternative analysis phase
Engineer K Creative Mitigation Obligation State Instance
During design development phase, prior to final presentation of alternatives to City
Engineer K's obligation to explore hybrid design solutions combining traditional and sustainable approaches to mitigate disproportionate community impact
Engineer K presents hybrid or creative alternatives to City decision makers
Identification that both binary design alternatives carry distinct adverse impacts — traditional approach risks disproportionate harm to underserved community; sustainable approach may have cost or timeline disadvantages
Engineer K Disproportionate Impact Assessment Underserved Community Flood
Disproportionate Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer K was required to apply disproportionate impact assessment capability to identify and analyze whether the Traditional Approach would disproportionately burden the nearby underserved community under flood scenarios, and to incorporate this finding into the comparative design alternatives analysis presented to the City.
Flood control system design analysis where Engineer K identified that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume capacity exceedance scenarios.
BER analysis directing Engineer K to address disproportionate impact on the underserved community, citing Code section III.1.f on treating all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, and directing creative thinking about mitigating flood impacts on that community.
Under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination.
Engineer K Faithful Agent Boundary State Instance
From City's formal design selection through project completion
Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials.
Engineer K's post-decision obligation to execute City's chosen design without self-interested advocacy or contract influence
Project completion or emergence of new public safety information requiring re-evaluation
Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it.
an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b
City decision makers' formal selection of one of the presented flood control design alternatives
Engineer K Faithful Agent Trustee Flood Control Design Phase
The City hired Engineer K and granted discretionary authority over design development, making Engineer K a trustee rather than a mere agent during the design phase.
During the design phase, Engineer K was obligated to act as a faithful trustee for the City — applying full professional knowledge, creativity, and judgment to develop design alternatives and recommendations as if doing the job for themselves — given that the City granted Engineer K discretionary authority over how to complete the design task.
Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee.
Throughout the design development phase, prior to City Council decision
During the design phase, the City trusts Engineer K to develop a design.
If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee — the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Flood control and resilience infrastructure design', 'personal_position': 'Believes Sustainable Approach better aligns with City policies and professional sustainability obligations'}
Licensed professional engineer hired by the City to design a new flood control system; evaluated traditional and sustainable approaches; conducted stakeholder meetings; identified disproportionate flood risk to underserved community; presented findings to City Council; proceeded with Traditional Approach implementation after City approval despite personal preference for Sustainable Approach.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'The City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Cost-Preference Community Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Environmental and Community Advocacy Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Underserved Community Flood Risk Stakeholder'}
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community
Engineer K identifies two potential approaches
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach
Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation
Engineer K Historically Underserved Community Impact State Instance
Throughout design development and alternative presentation phases
Engineer K's heightened obligations regarding flood control design impacts on the underserved community in the project area
City's design selection incorporating adequate consideration of equitable impact distribution
under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
Identification that the flood control system design alternatives carry disproportionate risk of adverse impact on a community characterized as underserved
Engineer K Informed Decision-Making Facilitation City Council Presentation
Informed Decision-Making Process Facilitation Capability
Engineer K was required to apply informed decision-making process facilitation capability to structure the City Council presentation of flood control alternatives in a manner that gave decision-makers complete, objective, and materially sufficient information — including all advantages, disadvantages, long-term risks, climate policy alignment, and disproportionate community impact findings — to enable a genuinely informed choice, consistent with the BER's ethical objective of informed policy and project decision-making.
City Council presentation of Traditional Approach versus Sustainable Approach flood control alternatives, where Engineer K was obligated to ensure decision-makers had all material information including non-obvious consequences before making their selection.
BER analysis citing BER Case 21-7's informed decision-making objective and directing Engineer K to present each alternative completely with advantages and disadvantages included, using all professional knowledge to study the problem and recommend options.
The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process.
Generally, Engineer K should use all of their knowledge and ability to study the problem, develop solutions, and recommend to the City the option (or options) they believe are best.
Engineer K Non-Discrimination Design Impact Underserved Community Flood Risk
Engineer K identified that the traditional flood control approach could disproportionately harm a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions; NSPE Code III.1.f requires treatment of all persons without discrimination.
Non-Discrimination in Design Impact Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to treat all persons and communities with dignity, respect, and fairness in the flood control design analysis, including identifying and disclosing the disproportionate flood risk imposed on the nearby underserved community under the traditional approach, and actively seeking design modifications to reduce or eliminate that disparate impact.
During design development, alternative analysis, and reporting phases
Engineer K Objective Truthful Reporting Flood Control Design Alternatives City Council
Engineer K presented comparative analysis of traditional and sustainable flood control approaches to City Council decision-makers; NSPE Code II.3.a requires inclusion of all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to be objective and truthful in professional reports and statements presented to the City and City Council regarding the flood control design alternatives, including all relevant and pertinent information about each alternative's advantages, disadvantages, risks, and community impacts.
When preparing and presenting design reports and recommendations to the City and City Council
Engineer K Policy-Misaligned Client Decision State Instance
From presentation of sustainable alternative through City's design decision
under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development
Engineer K's obligation to evaluate City's design selection against sustainable development principles and the City's own public welfare obligations
City's formal design selection with full information about sustainability tradeoffs
endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical
Potential City selection of traditional approach despite Engineer K's identification of sustainable alternative that better aligns with Code section III.2.d sustainable development principles
Engineer K Post-Decision Faithful Agent Deference City Council Flood Control Decision
Engineer K presented design alternatives to City Council decision-makers; after the City's decision, Engineer K's role shifted from trustee-advisor to faithful agent implementing the chosen design.
Post-Decision Faithful Agent Deference Obligation
Once the City Council made its decision among the presented flood control design alternatives, Engineer K was obligated to act as a faithful agent and implement the chosen design without continued self-interested advocacy for the sustainable alternative or any effort to influence the contract award by the public authority.
After City Council decision on design alternative
In fact, an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b.
Engineer K Post-Decision Faithful Agent Execution City Council Decision
Post-Decision Faithful Agent Execution Capability
Engineer K was required to apply post-decision faithful agent execution capability to recognize that once the City Council made its decision among the presented flood control alternatives, Engineer K's role transitioned from trustee-advisor to faithful agent executor — suppressing personal preference for the Sustainable Approach and refraining from any conduct that could constitute improper influence over the public authority's decision.
Post-City Council decision phase where Engineer K had fully presented both alternatives and the City made its selection, requiring Engineer K to transition from independent professional advisor to faithful agent executing the client's choice.
BER analysis directing Engineer K to act as a faithful agent following the City's decision, respect the accountability of elected officials to the public, avoid self-interested motivation toward the sustainable solution, and recognize that influencing a public authority's contract award would violate Code section II.5.b.
Engineer K Post-Override Environmental Justice Escalation Assessment
Post-Override Environmental Justice Escalation Capability
Engineer K was required to apply post-override environmental justice escalation capability to assess whether, after the City declined to address the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and approved the Traditional Approach, the residual risk to public health, safety, and welfare was sufficient to trigger escalation obligations beyond the client relationship.
Post-City Council decision phase where the City approved the Traditional Approach despite Engineer K's identification of disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, requiring Engineer K to assess escalation obligations.
BER analysis of Engineer K's obligations after the City made its decision, including consideration of whether public safety escalation obligations were triggered by the City's refusal to address the identified disproportionate community flood risk.
Engineer K is hired by the City with a specific task in mind—design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area; the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer K Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning BER Cases Flood Control
Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
Engineer K was required to apply precedent-based ethical reasoning capability to draw on BER Cases 21-7, 22-10, 15-12, 65-9, and 73-9 to analyze the ethical dimensions of the flood control design dilemma — including sustainability tradeoffs, disproportionate community impact, creative solution exploration, and informed decision-making obligations.
Flood control system design ethics analysis where BER applied analogical reasoning from prior cases involving highway routing, solar panel reliability, and irrigation sustainability to establish Engineer K's professional obligations.
BER analysis explicitly citing and applying multiple prior BER cases as analogical precedents to establish Engineer K's obligations regarding sustainable development presentation, client education, creative hybrid solutions, and disproportionate impact analysis.
The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7, where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility with a system of solar panels.
BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway.
BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options.
Engineer K Professional Judgment Independence Sustainable Preference Suppression
Professional Judgment Independence Under Client Pressure Capability
Engineer K was required to apply professional judgment independence capability in a dual direction — maintaining independent judgment and complete reporting during the design phase despite any pressure to minimize findings, while also suppressing personal professional preference for the Sustainable Approach after the City made its decision, avoiding self-interested advocacy that could compromise faithful agent obligations.
Post-City Council decision phase where Engineer K was required to suppress personal professional preference for the Sustainable Approach and execute the City's decision as a faithful agent without self-interested interference.
BER analysis directing Engineer K not to be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it, and recognizing that influencing a public authority's decision would violate Code section II.5.b — requiring independence from personal preference as well as from client pressure.
Engineer K Project Success Notification Flood Control System Functionality
The BER noted that any non-functional design brings into play the obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b, in the context of Engineer K's flood control system design.
Engineer K was obligated to advise the City if the proposed flood control system design would not be successful — including not only structural and economic success but also safety outcomes for the public — consistent with NSPE Code III.1.b.
Certainly, the system should be functional; any non-functional design brings into play the obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b.
Throughout design development and upon identification of any design deficiency that would render the system non-functional or unsafe
Engineer K Public Safety at Risk State Instance
Throughout the entire engagement from design through construction and operation
Engineer K is hired by the City with a specific task in mind—design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area
Engineer K's primary obligation context — designing a flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area
Successful completion and operation of the flood control system
the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare
City's engagement of Engineer K to design a flood control system for a rapidly growing urban area facing flood risk
Engineer K Sustainable Development Client Education Flood Control
Sustainable Development Client Education Capability
Engineer K was required to apply sustainable development client education capability to proactively introduce and explain the Sustainable Approach to the City — including its long-term environmental, climate resilience, and biodiversity benefits — harmonizing faithful agent obligations with sustainable development code provisions, rather than simply defaulting to the conventional Traditional Approach without raising sustainable alternatives.
Flood control system design phase where Engineer K identified both Traditional and Sustainable Approaches and was obligated to present the Sustainable Approach as a genuine alternative with full educational context about its benefits and tradeoffs.
BER analysis citing BER Cases 22-10 and 21-7 to establish that engineers must take the opportunity to educate clients about sustainable alternatives, that it is not enough to conclude client obligations take precedence over sustainable development principles, and that suggesting sustainable options informs the client while refusing to perform does not.
BER Case 22-10's discussion noted that Engineer Intern Wasser 'could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives . . . , Wasser . . . can harmonize [Code sections] I.4 and III.2.d.'
Engineer K Sustainable Development Integration Flood Control Design Analysis
Engineer K evaluated both traditional and sustainable flood control approaches; the BER emphasized that it is not sufficient to conclude that faithful agent duty takes precedence over sustainable development principles, and that engineers should educate clients about sustainable options.
Sustainable Development Integration Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to actively consider and integrate sustainable development principles into the flood control design analysis, present the sustainable alternative with full tradeoff information, and educate the City about sustainability considerations — harmonizing the faithful agent duty with the ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainable development principles under NSPE Code III.2.d.
Under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development.
Throughout design development and alternative analysis phase
Engineer K Sustainable Infrastructure Design Competence Flood Control Alternatives
Sustainable Infrastructure Design Competence
Engineer K was required to apply sustainable infrastructure design competence to evaluate, specify, and present the Sustainable Approach — including wetland restoration, biodynamic controls, and nature-based flood management — assessing its flood mitigation performance, biodiversity co-benefits, carbon sequestration potential, expandability, and long-term maintenance requirements in comparison to the Traditional Approach.
Flood control system design phase where Engineer K evaluated both Traditional and Sustainable Approaches and was obligated to present the Sustainable Approach with complete technical analysis of its attributes and tradeoffs.
Engineer K's development and presentation of the Sustainable Approach as a complete design alternative with full comparative analysis against the Traditional Approach, enabling the City Council to make an informed decision.
Engineer K Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Flood Control Design Phase
Trustee-Agent Role Distinction Capability
Engineer K was required to apply trustee-agent role distinction capability to correctly identify that during the design phase the City granted discretionary trustee authority — requiring Engineer K to exercise full professional judgment in developing and recommending solutions — and to recognize that this role would transition to faithful agent execution once the City Council made its decision.
Flood control system design engagement where Engineer K was hired with discretionary authority to develop design alternatives, requiring correct identification of trustee role obligations during design and agent role obligations post-decision.
BER analysis explaining the agent-trustee distinction and applying it to Engineer K's design phase obligations, noting that the City trusted Engineer K to develop a design using all professional knowledge and ability, while also recognizing the transition to agent role post-decision.
Environmental Justice Community Protection Constraint - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Risk
The Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to a nearby underserved community, creating a disproportionate environmental justice impact that Engineer K was obligated to identify, disclose, and seek to mitigate through the design process.
Environmental Justice Community Protection Constraint
Engineer K was constrained by federal and state environmental justice policies to ensure that the flood control design process included affirmative measures to identify, disclose, and address the disproportionate flood risk to the historically underserved community, prohibiting design recommendations or project processes that structurally disadvantaged that community relative to other project-area communities.
Executive Order 12898; City Environmental Justice Policy; NSPE Code Section III.1.f
Throughout the design evaluation and stakeholder engagement phases
The City's leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach, ultimately concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further
Environmental Justice Policy - Underserved Community Flood Risk
Federal, state, and local government agencies
Federal and State Environmental Justice Policies and Executive Orders
Engineer K when assessing and disclosing the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community
Provides the normative and policy framework for evaluating Engineer K's discovery that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters under high-volume conditions, grounding the obligation to disclose and address this inequitable impact
Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Diversion
Engineer K discovered during design analysis that the Traditional Approach's capacity exceedance scenario would divert floodwaters to a nearby underserved community, creating a disproportionate environmental justice impact.
Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to disclose to the City's leadership the finding that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact the nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions, including the probability, magnitude, and distributional inequity of that risk.
Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions—particularly if the design capacity of the Traditional Approach is breached
Upon discovery of the disproportionate impact finding, prior to and at the City Council meeting
Environmental Justice as Engineering Design Obligation Invoked by Engineer K
Nearby Underserved Community Flood Risk Stakeholder
Engineer K identified that the Traditional Approach would disproportionately burden a nearby underserved community with flood risk under high-volume conditions, treated this distributional inequity as a material factor in the design evaluation, and disclosed it to City leadership as part of the comparative analysis
In this context, environmental justice as an engineering design obligation required Engineer K to extend the public welfare analysis beyond aggregate flood protection to consider who bears the residual flood risk under the Traditional Approach, and to treat the disproportionate burden on the underserved community as a material design factor requiring disclosure and advocacy for mitigation
Engineer K fulfilled the identification and disclosure dimensions of the obligation; the City's rejection of mitigation raises the unresolved question of whether further escalation or community notification is required
Environmental Justice as Engineering Design Obligation Invoked for Underserved Community Flood Risk
Traditional approach flood risk assessment
Cost-Preference Community Stakeholder preferences
Engineer K identifies that the traditional approach may impose disproportionate flood risk on a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions, and is obligated to disclose this disproportionate impact and advocate for design alternatives or hybrid solutions that reduce the disparate impact
Environmental justice obligation requires Engineer K to treat the underserved community's disproportionate flood exposure as a material design consideration — not merely a note in the analysis — and to actively seek creative solutions that reduce the disparate impact
BER encourages creative hybrid solutions that may address both cost concerns and disproportionate impact, rather than treating the two as irreconcilable
Environmental Stewardship Invoked by Engineer K in Sustainable Approach Evaluation
Comparative design analysis presented to City Council
Engineer K evaluated and presented the Sustainable Approach's environmental benefits — including wetland restoration, biodiversity enhancement, and carbon emission reduction — as material factors in the comparative design analysis
In this context, environmental stewardship requires Engineer K to identify and present the environmental superiority of the Sustainable Approach as a material consideration, even when the client's cost preferences favor the Traditional Approach
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Develop a green infrastructure system incorporating wetland restoration and other biodynamic controls. This approach would mitigate flooding while enhancing local biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions.
Engineer K presented the environmental trade-offs fully and objectively, preserving client decision authority while ensuring environmental considerations were not suppressed from the analysis
Environmental and Community Organizations Advocacy Stakeholder
{'advocacy_position': 'Sustainable Approach (green infrastructure, wetland restoration)', 'rationale': 'Long-term environmental and social benefits'}
Community and environmental organizations that participated in stakeholder meetings and advocated for the Sustainable Approach based on long-term environmental and social benefits.
Environmental and Community Advocacy Stakeholder
community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits
Equitable Public Engagement Constraint - Engineer K - Underserved Community Stakeholder Meetings
The City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings. The underserved community most at risk from the Traditional Approach's floodwater diversion had a heightened interest in participating, requiring Engineer K to ensure their meaningful inclusion in the engagement process.
Engineer K was constrained to ensure that the City-directed stakeholder meetings were conducted in a manner that provided the underserved community — the community most at risk from the Traditional Approach — with genuine, accessible, and meaningful opportunity to participate, prohibiting engagement designs that structurally excluded the primary affected community from the decision-making process.
Environmental Justice Policy; NSPE Code Section III.1.f; Executive Order 12898
As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project.
During the stakeholder engagement phase of the project
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline. However, other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
Equitable Public Engagement Design - Engineer K - Stakeholder Meeting Process
Equitable Public Engagement Design Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to design and conduct stakeholder meetings that provided meaningful participation opportunity to all affected communities — including the underserved community at disproportionate flood risk — ensuring their perspectives were captured and represented in the comparative analysis.
Applied during the stakeholder engagement phase directed by the City as part of the project development process.
Conduct of stakeholder meetings that gathered input from both cost-preference community members and environmental/community organizations, with findings presented at City Council.
the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project.
Ethical Reasoning - Engineer K - Traditional vs Sustainable Approach Tradeoffs
Engineer K possessed the capability to deliberate on the ethical dimensions of competing design alternatives — weighing cost, urgency, long-term sustainability, climate policy alignment, and environmental justice — and to reach a professionally justified position while presenting complete information to the client.
Applied throughout the design phase evaluation and City Council presentation process.
Recognition of competing priorities of cost, urgency, and long-term impact; personal assessment that the Sustainable Approach better aligns with City policies and professional obligations; and presentation of complete comparative analysis to City leadership.
Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint - Engineer K - Sustainable Approach Preference
Engineer K personally believed the Sustainable Approach was superior but was constrained to express that professional opinion only through factually grounded analysis, not personal advocacy that could compromise objectivity or cross into self-interested contract influence.
Engineer K was constrained to ground any professional expression of preference for the Sustainable Approach in established technical facts and completed analysis — including the climate resilience policy alignment, long-term cost-benefit analysis, and expandability advantages — prohibiting advocacy for the Sustainable Approach based on personal belief alone without factual professional foundation.
NSPE Code Section II.3; NSPE Code Section II.5.b
During preparation of professional reports and City Council presentation
Faithful Agent Obligation - Engineer K - City Client
Engineer K was hired by the City to design a flood control system and granted discretionary authority during the design phase, creating a faithful agent relationship bounded by public welfare obligations.
Engineer K was obligated to act as a faithful agent and trustee for the City, serving the City's legitimate interests — including its adopted climate resilience policies and public welfare obligations — while providing complete and objective analysis of both design alternatives, and while recognizing that faithful agency does not require subordinating public safety to client preferences.
Throughout the engagement, from initial design through City Council presentation and implementation
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer K in Proceeding with City-Approved Traditional Approach
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
After presenting complete analysis and advocating for the Sustainable Approach, Engineer K proceeded with implementation of the City-approved Traditional Approach, acting as a faithful agent of the City within the bounds of the professional obligation to disclose risks
In this context, faithful agency requires Engineer K to execute the City's design decision after having fulfilled the disclosure and advocacy obligations, while retaining the authority and obligation to assess whether the identified third-party risk triggers further escalation duties that would override faithful agency
Engineer K proceeded with implementation after disclosing all risks to City leadership; the ethical adequacy of this resolution depends on whether the identified risk to the underserved community is sufficiently severe to override faithful agency obligations
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked for Engineer K Trustee Role
Engineer K acts as a trustee during the design phase with discretionary authority to develop the design, and must then transition to faithful agent status after the City makes its design decision, implementing the chosen approach without self-interested interference
The faithful agent obligation operates in two phases: during design, it requires Engineer K to exercise full professional judgment as trustee; after the City's decision, it requires deference to the client's lawful choice and prohibition on self-interested advocacy
The BER resolves the tension by distinguishing the trustee phase (full professional judgment required) from the post-decision phase (faithful agent deference required), with the transition point being the City's formal decision
These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions.
Hybrid Creative Solution Exploration - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Risk Mitigation
Analogous to BER Case 15-12 where the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another route, Engineer K was required to explore whether a combination of the Traditional Approach with sustainable provisions in the underserved community could mitigate the disproportionate flood risk.
Engineer K was required to explore and present creative hybrid solutions — such as combining the Traditional Approach with sustainable provisions in the underserved community — before accepting the binary framing of Traditional vs. Sustainable as the only available options, prohibiting premature closure on the either/or design decision.
BER Case 15-12; NSPE Code Section III.1.f
During the design development phase, prior to final presentation of alternatives to the City
Hybrid Design Exploration Constraint - Engineer K - Traditional vs Sustainable Approach
Engineer K identified two competing design approaches with significant respective drawbacks. BER precedent establishes that engineers should think creatively beyond binary options, particularly when one option creates disproportionate community impact.
Engineer K was constrained to explore and present to the City whether hybrid design solutions combining elements of the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches could reduce the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community while addressing the City's cost and schedule concerns, prohibiting premature acceptance of the binary design framing without demonstrating that creative engineering synthesis had been considered.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 15-12; BER Case 65-9; BER Case 73-9
During the design development and evaluation phase, prior to City Council presentation
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer's professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience, but recognizes competing priorities of cost, urgency, and long-term impact
Identified Floodwater Diversion Risk to Underserved Community
From Engineer K's discovery through project implementation and beyond
the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions—particularly if the design capacity of the Traditional Approach is breached
Public safety risk to underserved community from potential floodwater diversion
Engineer K's analysis reveals that Traditional Approach design capacity breach could divert floodwaters to underserved community neighborhood
Incomplete Risk Disclosure Prohibition - Engineer K - Low-Probability Flood Diversion Risk
Engineer K identified a low-probability but high-consequence risk of floodwater diversion to an underserved community and was obligated to include this risk in all professional reports and presentations, not minimizing it based on probability alone.
Engineer K was prohibited from omitting the identified low-probability but high-consequence risk of floodwater diversion to the underserved community from professional reports and City Council presentations, regardless of the risk's low probability, as omission of a known material risk would violate the obligation to present complete and pertinent information.
NSPE Code Section II.3.a; Professional Report Integrity Standard
During preparation of design reports and City Council presentation
Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication - Engineer K - Traditional Approach Deterioration
Infrastructure Lifecycle Risk Communication Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to communicate the long-term lifecycle risks of the Traditional Approach — including its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and demolition-rebuild consequences — to the City's leadership in a complete and objective manner.
Applied during City Council presentation comparing Traditional and Sustainable Approaches.
Presentation of all available information about both approaches including lifecycle risks at the City Council meeting, including the 15-year deterioration risk and expandability limitations of the Traditional Approach.
the floodwall system has a high carbon footprint, is prone to deterioration, and may require significant repairs or upgrades within 15 years
the system does not provide for expandability should future flooding risk expand or increase and would require complete demolition and rebuilding if the capacity proved insufficient in the future
Long-Term Infrastructure Risk Communication - Engineer K - Traditional vs Sustainable Approach
Engineer K evaluated two design alternatives with significantly different long-term risk profiles and was required to communicate those differences completely to the City client.
Long-Term Infrastructure Risk Communication Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to clearly communicate to the City the long-term risks of the Traditional Approach — including its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and the need for complete demolition and rebuilding if capacity proved insufficient — as well as the long-term benefits of the Sustainable Approach, so that the City could make an informed decision.
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint - Engineer K - Floodwater Diversion Risk
The identified risk was explicitly characterized as low-probability but high-consequence. The City ultimately dismissed the risk based on its low probability, suggesting the consequence dimension may not have been sufficiently emphasized in Engineer K's disclosure.
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Engineer K was constrained to disclose the full consequence profile of the low-probability floodwater diversion risk to the underserved community — including the severity of harm if the risk materialized — prohibiting presentation of the risk in a manner that allowed the City to dismiss it based on probability alone without fully understanding the magnitude of potential harm to the affected community.
NSPE Code Section II.3.a; NSPE Code Fundamental Canon I; Environmental Justice Policy
NSPE Code Section I.4 - Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section I.4
harmonize [Code sections] I.4 and III.2.d
engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees
Establishes Engineer K's fundamental obligation to act as a faithful agent or trustee to the City, requiring balancing of client service with sustainable development principles
NSPE Code Section II.3.a - Objective and Truthful Reporting
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.3.a
Establishes Engineer K's obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports, ensuring complete presentation of both traditional and sustainable design alternatives
NSPE Code Section II.5.b - Prohibition on Influencing Contract Awards
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section II.5.b
Prohibits Engineer K from using self-interest to influence the City's contract or design decision in favor of a sustainable solution if the City decides otherwise
NSPE Code Section III.1.b - Advising Client of Unsuccessful Projects
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.1.b
any non-functional design brings into play the obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b
Establishes Engineer K's obligation to advise the City if a proposed design will not be successful or functional
NSPE Code Section III.1.f - Dignity, Respect, and Non-Discrimination
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.1.f
Establishes Engineer K's obligation to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, relevant to addressing disproportionate impact on underserved communities
NSPE Code Section III.2.d - Sustainable Development Principles
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Section III.2.d
Encourages Engineer K to adhere to principles of sustainable development when designing the flood control system and presenting alternatives to the City
NSPE Code of Ethics - Fundamental Canons
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers - Fundamental Canons
The Board of Ethical Review (BER) begin this discussion by reviewing the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code)
Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee
Primary normative framework establishing Engineer K's obligations to protect public health, safety, and welfare, act as faithful agent or trustee, and adhere to sustainable development principles
NSPE Code of Ethics - Primary Ethical Authority
Engineer K throughout design evaluation, stakeholder engagement, and City Council presentation
Grounds Engineer K's professional obligations regarding public safety, sustainability, honest disclosure of risks, and the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the obligation to disclose the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and to present complete information to City leadership
{'risk_type': 'Disproportionate flood water diversion under design capacity breach conditions', 'probability_profile': 'Low-probability but high-consequence', 'community_status': 'Underserved'}
Residents of a nearby underserved community identified by Engineer K as facing disproportionate flood risk under low-probability but high-volume conditions if the Traditional Approach design capacity is breached; the City declined to mitigate this identified risk.
{'type': 'affected_by', 'target': 'The City Municipal Infrastructure Client'}
{'type': 'disclosed_to_client_by', 'target': 'Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer'}
Underserved Community Flood Risk Stakeholder
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint - Engineer K - Schedule and Probability Justification
The City declined to mitigate the identified flood risk to the underserved community based on schedule and probability considerations, and Engineer K proceeded with implementation without further escalation, raising the question of whether this constituted impermissible acquiescence.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer K was constrained from simply acquiescing to the City's decision to proceed without mitigation when the City's justification — schedule delay and low probability — effectively overrode the identified public safety risk to the underserved community, requiring Engineer K to assess whether continued participation without further escalation was consistent with the primary ethical duty to public safety.
Following City Council approval of the Traditional Approach without mitigation
Non-Discrimination Design Impact - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Control
Engineer K's identification that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact the nearby underserved community triggered the obligation under Code Section III.1.f to treat all persons with dignity, respect, and fairness, requiring affirmative creative analysis of mitigation options.
Engineer K was required to treat all persons and communities with dignity, respect, and fairness in the flood control design analysis, including the underserved community at risk of disproportionate flood impact, and was prohibited from designing or recommending solutions that systematically disadvantaged that community without affirmative mitigation measures.
NSPE Code Section III.1.f; Environmental Justice Policy
Under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination
Throughout the design development and alternative analysis phase
Objective Truthful Reporting - Engineer K - Flood Control Design Alternatives Report
Engineer K's professional reports to the City were required to include complete and objective information about both design alternatives, including the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, the long-term deterioration of the Traditional Approach, and the full cost implications of supplementary measures.
Engineer K was required to be objective and truthful in all professional reports and statements about the flood control design alternatives, including all relevant and pertinent information about both approaches, and was prohibited from selectively omitting known risks, costs, or community impacts.
NSPE Code Section II.3.a; NSPE Code Section II.3
Throughout the design phase and all professional reporting to the City
Objective and Complete Reporting - Engineer K - City Council Presentation
Engineer K prepared and delivered a comparative analysis of both design approaches to City leadership at a City Council meeting, including disclosure of the disproportionate community impact finding.
Engineer K was obligated to present all relevant and pertinent information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach — including risks, benefits, long-term costs, environmental justice impacts, and alignment with City resilience policies — objectively and completely to the City's leadership at the City Council meeting.
At the City Council meeting and in the engineering report prepared for that meeting
Objectivity Invoked by Engineer K in Presenting Both Design Approaches
Despite personally preferring the Sustainable Approach, Engineer K presented both design alternatives with complete and balanced analysis of risks and benefits, maintaining objectivity in the advisory role rather than selectively framing the analysis to steer the City toward the preferred option
In this context, objectivity required Engineer K to present the complete technical picture — including the cost and timeline advantages of the Traditional Approach — even while holding a personal professional view that the Sustainable Approach was superior
Engineer K maintained objectivity by presenting all material information and disclosing the personal professional view without allowing it to distort the completeness or balance of the analysis
Objectivity Invoked in Engineer K Design Reporting Obligation
Engineer K is required to be objective and truthful in professional reports about the flood control design alternatives, including all relevant and pertinent information without selective omission favoring one approach
Objectivity requires Engineer K to present technical findings about both approaches without allowing personal preference for the sustainable approach to distort the analysis or omit material information about either option
Objectivity obligation constrains the manner in which Engineer K presents sustainable development advocacy — advocacy must be grounded in objective technical analysis, not motivated by self-interest
Omission of Hybrid Alternative Proposal (Action 6) → Disproportionate Harm Risk Discovered remaining unmitigated through implementation (Events 3, 5, 6 combined outcome)
Post-Approval Implementation Decision (Action 5) → Implementation Phase Commenced (Event 6)
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation - Engineer K - Underserved Community Residual Risk
The City's leadership decided not to address the floodwater diversion risk to the underserved community, citing low probability and project delay concerns, and approved the Traditional Approach. Engineer K then proceeded with implementation.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Escalation Obligation
After the City declined to address the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and approved the Traditional Approach, Engineer K was obligated to evaluate whether the residual risk was sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, and to take such escalation steps if warranted.
After the City Council's decision to approve the Traditional Approach without addressing the underserved community risk
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked After City Rejects Mitigation
Employer Concurrence Requirement for Post-Obligation Advocacy
After the City declined to mitigate the identified flood risk to the underserved community, Engineer K proceeded with implementation without apparent further escalation — raising the question of whether the nature, severity, and distributional character of the identified risk triggered an obligation to escalate beyond the City Council presentation
In this context, the post-client-refusal escalation assessment obligation required Engineer K to critically assess whether the City's characterization of the risk as 'low probability' was professionally adequate, whether the vulnerability of the underserved community heightened the escalation threshold, and whether proceeding with implementation without further action was ethically sufficient
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
The case facts do not indicate that Engineer K conducted or documented such an assessment; the ethical adequacy of proceeding with implementation after the City's rejection remains the central unresolved ethical question in the case
Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation.
Post-Decision Faithful Agent - Engineer K - City Council Flood Control Decision
After the City made its decision on the flood control design approach, Engineer K was required to respect the City's decision-making authority and act as a faithful agent, while remaining bound by the paramount public safety obligation if the selected design created unmitigated risks to the underserved community.
Post-Disclosure Continued Participation Ethical Boundary Constraint
Once the City Council made its design selection among the presented flood control alternatives, Engineer K was constrained to act as a faithful agent executing the City's decision, while simultaneously being required to assess whether continued participation was ethically permissible given any residual unmitigated public safety risks to the underserved community.
NSPE Code Section I.4; NSPE Code Section II.5.b; BER Case 84-5
Following City Council's final design selection decision
Post-Decision Self-Interest Recusal Obligation Invoked Against Engineer K Post-Decision Advocacy
After the City makes its design decision, Engineer K must refrain from actions motivated by personal preference for the sustainable approach, including any effort to influence the contract award by a public authority, which would violate NSPE Code section II.5.b
The post-decision recusal obligation marks the transition point where Engineer K's role shifts from trustee-advisor (exercising professional judgment) to faithful agent (implementing client's decision) — self-interested advocacy for the rejected approach after this transition point constitutes an ethical violation
BER resolves by establishing a clear temporal boundary: sustainable advocacy is appropriate and obligatory during the design and presentation phase, but becomes improper self-interest after the City's decision
an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b.
Post-Override Environmental Justice Escalation - Engineer K - City Refusal to Mitigate
Engineer K possessed — and was required to exercise — the capability to assess whether the City's refusal to address the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community triggered escalation obligations beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities or public bodies.
Arose after City Council approved Traditional Approach without addressing identified disproportionate community flood risk.
Situation arising after City declined to address floodwater diversion risk, requiring Engineer K to evaluate whether residual public safety risk warranted external escalation despite proceeding with implementation.
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer K Regarding Underserved Community Flood Risk
Engineer K proactively identified and disclosed the disproportionate flood risk to the nearby underserved community to City leadership without waiting for the City to request such analysis, treating the identification of this third-party risk as a professional obligation independent of the contracted scope
In this context, proactive risk disclosure required Engineer K to surface the environmental justice risk to City leadership as part of the comparative design analysis, even though the City's primary focus was on cost and implementation timeline
Engineer K fulfilled the proactive disclosure obligation by presenting the risk to City Council; the City then made an informed decision to accept the risk
Professional Dignity Invoked for Equitable Treatment of All Community Stakeholders
Cost-preference community stakeholder engagement
Underserved community flood risk assessment
Engineer K is required under Code section III.1.f to treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination — including both the cost-preference community members and the underserved community facing disproportionate flood risk — ensuring that design analysis does not discount the interests of any community based on economic or political power
Professional dignity in this context extends beyond interpersonal conduct to require that Engineer K's technical analysis treats the welfare of all affected communities with equal weight, not allowing the underserved community's lesser political or economic power to result in their flood risks being discounted in the design analysis
Professional dignity obligation reinforces the environmental justice obligation — both require Engineer K to give equal weight to the underserved community's interests in the technical analysis
Professional Judgment Independence - Engineer K - Client Timeline Pressure
Engineer K possessed the capability to maintain independent professional judgment and complete disclosure obligations despite the City's preference for the Traditional Approach and its timeline-based rationale for declining to address the identified disproportionate community flood risk.
Applied throughout the comparative analysis and City Council presentation process, where client preferences created pressure to minimize or omit identified risks.
Presentation of complete risk information including the disproportionate community impact finding at the City Council meeting, despite awareness of the City's cost and timeline preferences.
Professional Report Integrity Standard - Complete Risk Disclosure
Professional engineering community and ethics bodies
Professional Norms for Complete and Accurate Engineering Reporting
Engineer K when preparing and presenting the comparative analysis to City Council
Governs Engineer K's obligation to present complete, accurate, and unbiased information about both design alternatives — including the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community — to City leadership, prohibiting selective omission of material facts
Project Non-Success Advisory - Engineer K - Traditional Approach Long-Term Adequacy
Engineer K possessed the capability to recognize and advise the City that the Traditional Approach may not be successful in the long term due to its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and potential for complete demolition and rebuilding if capacity proves insufficient.
Applied during City Council presentation when communicating the long-term adequacy risks of the Traditional Approach.
Presentation of long-term risk information about the Traditional Approach at the City Council meeting, including deterioration timeline and expandability limitations.
Project Success Notification - Engineer K - Traditional Approach Long-Term Adequacy
Engineer K identified significant long-term limitations of the Traditional Approach, including deterioration, non-expandability, and disproportionate community risk, and was required to communicate these to the City as bearing on the project's long-term success.
Engineer K was obligated to advise the City when the Traditional Approach may not be successful in the long term — including its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and the safety risk to the underserved community under capacity exceedance — so that the City could make an informed decision about whether to proceed.
Project Success Notification Constraint - Engineer K - Traditional Approach Long-Term Adequacy
The Traditional Approach had known long-term limitations including deterioration within 15 years and inability to expand capacity, which Engineer K was obligated to communicate as potential project success concerns.
Project Success Adverse Notification Constraint
Engineer K was obligated to advise the City that the Traditional Approach may not be successful in the long term — including its 15-year deterioration timeline, lack of expandability, and the need for complete demolition and rebuilding if capacity proves insufficient — prohibiting Engineer K from proceeding with implementation without ensuring the City's decision-makers were fully informed of these long-term adequacy concerns.
While effective in the short term, the floodwall system has a high carbon footprint, is prone to deterioration, and may require significant repairs or upgrades within 15 years.
During design evaluation and City Council presentation phases
Further, the system does not provide for expandability should future flooding risk expand or increase and would require complete demolition and rebuilding if the capacity proved insufficient in the future.
Public Safety Paramount Constraint - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Diversion Risk
Engineer K discovered that the Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to a nearby underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions, creating a public safety risk that had to be disclosed regardless of the City's cost and schedule preferences.
Engineer K was constrained from proceeding with or endorsing the Traditional Approach without fully disclosing the identified risk of disproportionate floodwater diversion to the underserved community, as the paramount public safety obligation prohibited suppression or minimization of known risks to public welfare regardless of client preference for the lower-cost approach.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Fundamental Canon I; NSPE Code Section II.1
From the point of discovery of the disproportionate flood risk through project completion
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer K Regarding Underserved Community Flood Risk
Traditional Approach flood control design
Engineer K identified that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters under high-volume conditions, disclosed this risk to City leadership, and presented it as a material factor in the design decision
In this context, public welfare requires identification and disclosure of disproportionate flood risk to a vulnerable third-party community not party to the engineering engagement, even when the risk is characterized as low-probability by the client
Engineer K discharged the disclosure obligation by presenting the risk to City Council; the remaining tension is whether the City's rejection of mitigation triggers further escalation obligations
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Flood Control System Design
Flood control system design for rapidly growing urban area
Cost preferences of community stakeholders
Engineer K's entire engagement is framed around designing a flood control system whose goal is to protect public health, safety, and welfare, establishing public welfare as the foundational purpose against which all design choices must be evaluated
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer K to evaluate both traditional and sustainable design alternatives through the lens of their effectiveness in protecting the public, including underserved communities facing disproportionate flood risk
Public welfare obligation frames the entire design task and is not in direct tension here — both approaches aim at public protection, with the tension arising in how comprehensively and creatively Engineer K addresses disproportionate impacts
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition - Engineer K - Underserved Community Safety
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer K possessed the capability to recognize that the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community implicated paramount public health, safety, and welfare obligations that could override faithful agent duties to the City client.
Applied when evaluating the ethical implications of the City's decision to proceed with the Traditional Approach without addressing the identified underserved community flood risk.
Recognition and disclosure of the disproportionate community flood risk at the City Council meeting, and the subsequent obligation to evaluate whether the City's refusal to address this risk triggered escalation beyond the client relationship.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Risk
The City declined to mitigate the identified risk of floodwater diversion to an underserved community under capacity exceedance conditions, and Engineer K proceeded with implementation of the Traditional Approach.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to consider whether the City's refusal to address the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community — a risk to public health and safety — required escalation to regulatory authorities, public bodies, or other appropriate parties beyond the client relationship.
After the City Council's decision and before or during implementation of the Traditional Approach
Qualitative Risk Assessment - Traditional Approach Flood Diversion Risk
Risk Assessment of Traditional Floodwall Capacity Breach and Flood Diversion to Underserved Community
Engineer K during design analysis and City Council presentation
Engineer K's structured professional assessment of the low-probability but high-consequence risk of floodwater diversion to the underserved community under capacity-breach conditions, used to inform City leadership and ground the ethical disclosure obligation
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach is better. Should Engineer K have only presented information about the Sustainable Approach?
Given that the City has an explicit climate resilience policy, does Engineer K have an obligation to formally document and communicate to the City that the Traditional Approach may be inconsistent with that policy, beyond simply presenting both options at the City Council meeting?
Was Engineer K obligated to explore and formally propose a hybrid design solution that might have mitigated the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community before accepting the City's binary choice between the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches?
After the City refuses to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community and approves the Traditional Approach, does Engineer K have an obligation to notify relevant public authorities or regulatory bodies beyond the City itself, given that the risk involves a low-probability but high-consequence harm to a vulnerable population?
Did Engineer K fulfill the obligation of equitable stakeholder engagement by ensuring the underserved community most at risk from the Traditional Approach had meaningful representation and voice in the stakeholder meetings, or did the process inadvertently privilege the preferences of more organized community groups?
Does Engineer K have any ethical obligations after the City approves the Traditional Approach?
How should Engineer K balance the faithful agent obligation to execute the City's approved Traditional Approach against the paramount duty to protect public safety when the approved design carries a known, unmitigated disproportionate flood risk to an underserved community?
Does Engineer K's personal belief that the Sustainable Approach is superior create a tension between the duty to provide objective and truthful professional reporting and the prohibition against using professional influence to affect contract decisions in a self-interested or advocacy-driven manner?
When the City's decision to approve the Traditional Approach appears inconsistent with its own climate resilience policy, does Engineer K's obligation to act as a faithful agent and execute the client's decision conflict with the professional duty to adhere to sustainable development principles and to advise the client when a project may not be successful in meeting its stated long-term goals?
Does the principle of non-discrimination and equal treatment of all persons conflict with the faithful agent obligation when the client's approved design decision foreseeably produces disproportionate harm to an underserved community, and if so, which principle should govern Engineer K's post-approval conduct?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer K fulfill their duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public by continuing to implement the Traditional Approach after the City refused to mitigate the identified disproportionate flood risk to the nearby underserved community?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the City's decision to approve the Traditional Approach produce the best overall outcome when weighing the lower upfront cost and faster implementation against the long-term risks of infrastructure deterioration, limited expandability, and the low-probability but high-consequence disproportionate flood harm to the underserved community?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer K demonstrate professional integrity and moral courage by fully disclosing the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community during the City Council presentation, even when the City's leadership chose to dismiss the concern on grounds of low probability and project delay?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer K's duty as a faithful agent or trustee to the City conflict with their categorical duty not to discriminate and to treat all persons with dignity and fairness, and if so, which duty should take precedence when the client's approved design foreseeably imposes disproportionate harm on an underserved community?
If Engineer K had proactively proposed a hybrid design solution that incorporated targeted elements of the Sustainable Approach specifically to mitigate the disproportionate flood diversion risk to the underserved community before the City Council vote, would the City have been more likely to approve a modified Traditional Approach that addressed the environmental justice concern without incurring the full cost premium of the Sustainable Approach?
If Engineer K had presented only the Sustainable Approach to the City — omitting the Traditional Approach entirely on the grounds of personal professional preference and alignment with City climate resilience policy — would Engineer K have violated the faithful agent obligation and the duty to provide objective and truthful reporting, and would the City have had sufficient information to exercise informed decision-making authority?
If Engineer K had formally notified the City in writing — after the City Council's approval of the Traditional Approach — that the design as approved would not be successful in protecting all members of the public equitably under high-volume flood conditions, and the City still refused to act, would Engineer K have been ethically obligated to withdraw from the project or escalate the concern to a relevant public authority?
If the underserved community had been formally represented as a stakeholder in the City Council meeting and had been made explicitly aware of the low-probability but high-consequence flood diversion risk before the vote, would the City's decision-making process have been more ethically defensible, and does Engineer K bear any responsibility for ensuring that the affected community had meaningful notice and opportunity to participate?
Resource Constraint - City Budget Preference - Traditional Approach Cost Advantage
The Traditional Approach was preferred in part due to its lower upfront cost, while the Sustainable Approach had significantly higher initial costs. This cost differential constrained the range of solutions Engineer K could realistically propose.
The City's preference for the lower-cost Traditional Approach created a resource constraint that limited Engineer K's ability to recommend or implement the more expensive Sustainable Approach or comprehensive mitigation measures for the underserved community, requiring Engineer K to navigate between economically feasible solutions and professionally required standards of protection.
Project economic context; City stakeholder preferences
Traditional Approach: Build a concrete floodwall system to provide immediate protection at a relatively low cost.
Throughout the design evaluation and decision-making phases
However, the initial cost is significantly higher than the traditional approach and the system requires several years to fully mature before offering optimal protection.
Safety Obligation - Engineer K - Public Flood Protection
Engineer K designed a flood control system for a rapidly growing urban area experiencing increasingly severe flooding, with identified risks to an underserved community under capacity exceedance conditions.
Engineer K was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — including the underserved community at risk of disproportionate flood impact — in all design decisions and recommendations related to the flood control system.
Throughout the design, analysis, and implementation phases of the project
Self-Interest Prohibition - Engineer K - City Flood Control Design Decision
After presenting both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach to the City, Engineer K was constrained from using personal preference for the sustainable solution to influence the City's decision, as City officials are accountable to the public for their decisions.
Self-Interest Prohibition in Client Design Decision Constraint
Engineer K was prohibited from using personal preference for the sustainable approach to influence the City's design selection or contract award after full professional presentation of alternatives had been made, and was required to execute the City's chosen design faithfully without continued self-interested advocacy.
NSPE Code Section II.5.b; NSPE Code Section I.4
Following Engineer K's complete presentation of design alternatives to City decision-makers
Situational Awareness - Engineer K - Environmental Justice and Climate Policy Context
Engineer K possessed the capability to perceive and interpret the full environmental, social, and policy context of the flood control design decision — including the City's climate resilience policies, the presence of a nearby underserved community, and the long-term climate change risk trajectory — as factors affecting the ethical evaluation of design alternatives.
Applied throughout the design phase, stakeholder engagement, and City Council presentation process.
Recognition of the City's climate resilience policy context, identification of the underserved community's disproportionate flood risk, and assessment of long-term climate change implications for infrastructure capacity adequacy.
the system does not provide for expandability should future flooding risk expand or increase
From stakeholder meetings through City Council decision
Engineer K's professional judgment amid divided stakeholder preferences
City Council approves Traditional Approach
other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach
Stakeholder meetings reveal divided community preferences between cost-effective Traditional Approach and sustainable long-term Sustainable Approach
Stakeholder Engagement Balanced Representation - Engineer K - All Stakeholder Groups
Engineer K conducted stakeholder meetings that produced divergent perspectives from cost-preference commentors, environmental organizations, and implicitly from the underserved community at risk of disproportionate impact.
Stakeholder Engagement Balanced Representation Obligation
Engineer K was obligated to ensure that the perspectives of all stakeholder groups — including cost-preference commentors, environmental advocates, and the underserved community — were accurately and completely represented in the engineering analysis and recommendations presented to City decision-makers.
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline
During stakeholder engagement and in the preparation of the comparative analysis presented to City leadership
other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits
Stakeholder Engagement Balanced Representation Constraint - Engineer K - Divided Stakeholder Preferences
Stakeholder meetings produced divided preferences between the Traditional and Sustainable Approaches. Engineer K was required to represent all perspectives accurately and completely in professional communications to the City.
Engineer K was constrained to ensure that the professional report and City Council presentation accurately and completely represented the full range of stakeholder perspectives — including both cost-preference commentors and environmental and community advocates — prohibiting selective or disproportionate representation of stakeholder views that would skew the City's decision-making process.
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline. However, other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits.
During preparation of the stakeholder engagement summary and City Council presentation
Stakeholder Meeting Facilitation (Action 2) → Community Preference Division Revealed (Event 2)
Stormwater Risk Assessment - Engineer K - Flood Control System Design
Engineer K possessed the technical capability to assess and quantify stormwater runoff risks under low-probability but high-volume conditions, including the risk of capacity exceedance and resulting floodwater diversion to adjacent communities.
Applied during design phase analysis of Traditional Approach flood control system performance under extreme conditions.
Technical analysis identifying that the Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to an underserved community under low-probability but high-volume conditions if design capacity is breached.
Sustainable Approach implementation before optimal flood protection from Sustainable Approach
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation Invoked by Engineer K in City Council Presentation
Engineer K presented the Sustainable Approach's long-term environmental and social benefits to City Council, advocating for the approach that Engineer K personally believed aligned better with City policies and professional sustainability obligations, while respecting the City's ultimate decision authority
In this context, sustainable development advocacy required Engineer K to formally present the sustainability case for the green infrastructure approach through the appropriate channel — the City Council presentation — without unilaterally imposing that preference on the client's decision
Engineer K fulfilled the advocacy obligation through the City Council presentation and deferred to the City's decision authority after making the sustainability case
Sustainable Development Advocacy Obligation Invoked for Engineer K Option Presentation
Sustainable flood control approach development
Engineer K is encouraged to adhere to sustainable development principles and must present the sustainable flood control approach as a genuine alternative, educating the City about its long-term environmental and community benefits rather than defaulting to the traditional approach without sustainable consideration
Sustainable development advocacy is not merely permissible but is an affirmative professional obligation during the trustee design phase — Engineer K must integrate sustainable development principles into the analysis rather than treating client loyalty as automatically overriding sustainability considerations
under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development.
BER resolves the tension by holding that sustainable development advocacy and faithful agent obligation are not inherently in conflict — presenting sustainable options educates the client and serves their interests, while post-decision deference preserves client authority
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.
endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical.
Sustainable Development Integration - Engineer K - Flood Control Design Analysis
Engineer K's obligation to adhere to sustainable development principles under Code Section III.2.d, combined with the City's adopted climate resilience policies, required that the design alternatives presentation include evaluation of how each approach aligned with those policies.
Engineer K was required to evaluate both design alternatives against the City's adopted climate resilience and sustainable development policies, and was constrained from presenting design recommendations without communicating how each alternative aligned or conflicted with those policies, even when the client retained ultimate authority to select the Traditional Approach.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d; City Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
During design development and presentation of alternatives to the City
Sustainable Engineering Design Standards - Green Infrastructure
Professional engineering and environmental standards bodies
Green Infrastructure and Wetland Restoration Engineering Standards
Develop a green infrastructure system incorporating wetland restoration and other biodynamic controls.
This approach would mitigate flooding while enhancing local biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions.
the natural aspects of this approach could readily be expanded if additional capacity is necessary should future flooding risk expand or increase
Engineer K during comparative design evaluation of Traditional vs. Sustainable approaches
Technical standards governing the design and evaluation of green infrastructure systems incorporating wetland restoration and biodynamic controls, providing the technical basis for Engineer K's assessment of the Sustainable Approach's feasibility, expandability, and long-term performance
Sustainable Infrastructure Design - Engineer K - Green Infrastructure Evaluation
Engineer K possessed the technical capability to design and evaluate a green infrastructure flood control system incorporating wetland restoration and biodynamic controls, including assessment of its maturation timeline, expandability, biodiversity co-benefits, and carbon emission reduction potential.
Applied during initial design phase when identifying and evaluating the two potential flood control approaches.
Identification and technical evaluation of the Sustainable Approach as a viable design alternative, including assessment of its maturation timeline, expandability characteristics, and environmental co-benefits.
the system requires several years to fully mature before offering optimal protection
Temporal Disclosure Urgency Constraint - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Risk Discovery
Engineer K discovered the disproportionate flood risk while working on the report and gathering necessary information during the initial design phase, creating an obligation to disclose promptly rather than deferring to a later project stage.
Engineer K was constrained to disclose the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community promptly upon discovery — during the initial design phase — prohibiting deferral of this safety-relevant communication to later project phases or until a more convenient moment in the project timeline.
While working on the report and gathering necessary information, Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions
From the point of discovery of the disproportionate flood risk during the initial design phase
The City Municipal Infrastructure Client
{'policy_mandate': 'Climate resilience and sustainability infrastructure development policies', 'decision_body': 'City Council / City leadership', 'decision_rationale': 'Low probability of capacity breach; mitigation would cause further project delay'}
City government client that hired Engineer K, directed stakeholder engagement, received Engineer K's comparative analysis at City Council meeting, decided not to address disproportionate flood risk to underserved community citing low probability and delay concerns, and approved the Traditional Approach.
{'type': 'affected_community', 'target': 'Underserved Community Flood Risk Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer K Flood Control Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'stakeholder_engagement', 'target': 'Cost-Preference Community Stakeholder'}
{'type': 'stakeholder_engagement', 'target': 'Environmental and Community Advocacy Stakeholder'}
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City
The City approves the Traditional Approach
the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked Regarding Underserved Community
Engineer K identified that the Traditional Approach could divert floodwaters to a nearby underserved community under high-volume conditions, disclosed this risk to City leadership, and faces the question of whether the City's rejection of mitigation triggers an obligation to directly notify the affected community or regulatory authorities
In this context, the third-party flood risk notification obligation required Engineer K to disclose the identified risk to the City client; the remaining question is whether the City's refusal to mitigate triggers a further obligation to notify the affected community or appropriate authorities directly
Engineer K disclosed the risk to City leadership but the City declined to act; the tension between faithful agency and third-party notification obligations remains unresolved in the case facts as Engineer K proceeds with implementation
Timely Risk Disclosure - Engineer K - Underserved Community Flood Risk
Engineer K identified the disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community during the design phase and disclosed it at the City Council meeting.
Engineer K was obligated to disclose the identified risk of disproportionate flood impact on the underserved community promptly upon discovery, even before full quantification of the probability and magnitude was complete, given the public welfare implications.
Upon discovery of the disproportionate impact risk during design analysis
Traditional Approach floodwall operation before required repairs or upgrades
Trustee Discretion and Deference Obligation Invoked for Engineer K Design Phase
During the design phase, Engineer K is granted trustee discretion to develop design alternatives using full professional judgment; upon presenting complete analysis to City decision-makers, Engineer K must defer to their choice and refrain from post-decision self-interested advocacy for the sustainable approach
The agent-trustee distinction operationalizes the faithful agent obligation by clarifying when Engineer K exercises independent professional judgment versus when Engineer K implements client direction — the design phase grants trustee authority; the post-decision phase requires agent compliance
BER resolves by defining the transition point: Engineer K exercises trustee judgment to develop and present complete analysis, then defers to City officials who bear democratic accountability for the ultimate decision
Watershed Protection Design - Engineer K - Flood Control System
Engineer K designed a flood control system where the Traditional Approach's capacity exceedance scenario would divert floodwaters to an underserved community, and where the system lacked expandability for future flood risk increases.
Engineer K was obligated to ensure that the flood control system design adequately protected all affected communities — including the nearby underserved community — from flood risk, including accounting for capacity exceedance scenarios and the cumulative risk increases from the design's inability to expand with future flooding risk.
During the design phase and in the comparative analysis presented to City leadership
Written Report Completeness Constraint - Engineer K - City Council Presentation
Engineer K was preparing a comprehensive report on two competing flood control design approaches for City Council decision-making, requiring complete disclosure of all material risks, costs, and policy implications of each approach.
Engineer K was required to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in the professional report and City Council presentation — including the identified disproportionate flood risk to the underserved community, the long-term deterioration timeline of the Traditional Approach, and the policy misalignment with the City's climate resilience framework — prohibiting selective omission of any of these material facts.
During preparation and delivery of the City Council design presentation
discovery of disproportionate impact before City Council presentation
initial design phase before City Council meeting
initial design phase before stakeholder meetings
mitigation measures for underserved community overlaps project timeline extension
report preparation and information gathering overlaps discovery of disproportionate impact on underserved community
stakeholder meetings before discovery of disproportionate impact on underserved community