Balancing Client Directives and Public Welfare: Stormwater Management Dilemma
Cited as one of several cases where disclosure of known facts was required, specifically involving violations of federal and state laws and regulations.
Cited as a classic example of the disclosure question, establishing that engineers must include all relevant factual information in written reports submitted to public authorities, even when verbally communicated to the client.
Cited as one of several cases where disclosure of known facts was required, specifically involving public safety risk of future surge level rise.
Cited alongside BER Case 22-5 to establish recent precedent emphasizing an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water.
Cited as one of several cases where disclosure of known facts was required, specifically involving effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals affected by ongoing climate change.
Cited alongside BER Case 20-4 to establish recent precedent emphasizing an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water.
Quoted within BER Case 76-4 to establish the foundational principle that members of the engineering profession must devote their interests to the public welfare as a basic concept of the profession.
Cited as a foundational case establishing that an engineer's duty to public welfare is paramount over client interests, particularly in environmental/water quality situations where the engineer must report findings to authorities.
Cited as a direct parallel to the present case, establishing that an engineer who notifies a client of safety concerns but then continues working when the client refuses to address them has abandoned their ethical duty to the public in favor of the client's economic concerns.
Cited as one of several cases where disclosure of known facts was required, specifically involving safety violations confided by the client.
Cited as one of several cases where disclosure of known facts was required, specifically involving incomplete drawings and specifications.
Conducting further risk studies after project resumption and the heavy rainfall event directly produced the Risk Qualification Finding, which is the factual foundation for every subsequent notification and ethical determination, meaning that fulfilling both the duty to public safety and the faithful agent obligation here was causally necessary for any legitimate downstream action to occur at all.
Notifying the client of the qualified risk fulfilled the obligation to report truthfully and to advise the client of project unsuccessfulness, and this action is the causal pivot point from which two sharply divergent outcomes branch, one being an ethical permissibility determination and the other being a safeguard refusal that ultimately forced Engineer L toward a violation, making the notification itself the most consequentially significant act in the chain.
Because the client refused safeguards after being properly notified, Engineer L's decision to continue work violated the paramount duty to public safety and the obligation to advise against an unsuccessful project, and the causal context makes this violation especially serious because the Ethical Impermissibility Determination had already been reached, meaning the harm was foreseeable and the normative boundary was crossed with full awareness.
By choosing not to disclose the risk concern during the project suspension, Engineer L preserved the client relationship and grounded the decision in available technical fact, but this restraint only remained normatively defensible because the suspension itself interrupted active harm, making the downstream resumption and further study the true test of whether the obligation to public safety would ultimately be honored.
It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk.
The Board's permissive ruling on Engineer L's silence at suspension rests implicitly on the principle that a professional obligation to disclose risk requires a factual threshold — that is, a concern must be sufficiently concrete and quantifiable before it triggers a mandatory disclosure duty. However, this reasoning leaves an important nuance unaddressed: Engineer L's silence was not merely a passive omission but occurred in the context of active communications with Client X about the suspension itself. Under Code Section III.3.a, which prohibits material omissions in professional statements, the question is not only whether the risk was quantified but whether a reasonable client, receiving Engineer L's communications about suspension, would have made a materially different decision had the preliminary concern been disclosed. Given that Client X's financial setback was the stated reason for suspension, early disclosure of even an unquantified risk might have altered the timeline or scope of resumption. The Board's conclusion that silence was permissible is defensible but incomplete: it should be conditioned on the further finding that the preliminary concern was genuinely pre-threshold and not merely inconvenient to disclose, and that Engineer L's suspension communications did not affirmatively create a misleading impression of risk-free status.
The Board's conclusion that it would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working after Client X refuses to implement protective safeguards correctly identifies the outer boundary of faithful agency, but it does not resolve the more consequential question of what Engineer L must do after withdrawal. Withdrawal alone — without regulatory notification — may produce a worse public health outcome than continued engagement under protest, because a successor engineer may lack Engineer L's domain expertise, institutional knowledge of the site's stormwater dynamics, or awareness of the confirmed runoff risk. Under Code Section I.1, the paramount duty to protect public safety is not discharged by the mere act of withdrawal; it persists as an affirmative obligation. The Board's ruling therefore implies, even if it does not state, that withdrawal must be accompanied by steps sufficient to ensure the public safety concern does not simply migrate to a less informed professional. At minimum, Engineer L bears an obligation to fully brief any successor engineer on the confirmed stormwater runoff risk, and the stronger reading of Code Section II.1.a — which requires notification when judgment is overruled under circumstances endangering life or property — supports the conclusion that regulatory reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority is not merely permissible but required once Client X has explicitly declared intent to defer compliance issues.
The Board's two conclusions together reveal a graduated escalation structure implicit in the Code but never made fully explicit: Engineer L's obligations intensify at each stage as the risk becomes more concrete and as Client X's resistance becomes more definitive. At the preliminary concern stage, silence was permissible because the risk was unquantified. At resumption, disclosure to Client X was required once the risk was qualitatively confirmed. After Client X's explicit refusal and declared intent to defer compliance, the faithful agent duty — which ordinarily counsels deference to client decisions — reaches its categorical limit under Code Section I.1, and the public welfare obligation becomes paramount. This graduated structure has an important implication the Board did not address: the ethical permissibility of each earlier stage is contingent on Engineer L actually advancing to the next stage when the threshold is crossed. If Engineer L had remained silent after quantifying the risk at resumption, the earlier silence at suspension would retroactively appear more problematic, because the pattern would suggest a disposition toward systematic non-disclosure rather than a principled application of the fact-threshold rule. The Board's permissive ruling on the suspension silence is therefore best understood as conditional on Engineer L's subsequent conduct — specifically, the timely disclosure to Client X after the historic rainfall event — which the facts confirm did occur. This conditionality is an analytical nuance the Board's explicit conclusions leave implicit.
It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
In response to Q101: An unquantified but professionally recognized risk crosses the mandatory disclosure threshold when a licensed engineer with domain expertise forms a genuine professional judgment — not mere speculation — that a specific, identifiable harm to a specific, identifiable population is plausible given the project's design trajectory. Engineer L's preliminary concern during the initial design phase likely met this threshold. Engineer L had many years of experience in stormwater control design, had already identified that heavy stormwater flows would increase over time, and understood that the affected community relied on the watershed as a primary drinking water source. The concern was not a vague intuition but a professionally grounded assessment that simply lacked quantification. Code Section II.3.b permits engineers to express technical opinions 'founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter' — it does not require certainty or full quantification. A preliminary but expert-grounded concern about drinking water contamination for a dependent community satisfies the factual foundation requirement. Therefore, Engineer L's preliminary concern at the time of suspension had likely already crossed the threshold that would have made disclosure to Client X professionally appropriate, even if not yet legally mandated.
In response to Q102: Engineer L bears an independent obligation to notify a relevant regulatory authority — specifically the State Pollution Control Authority — when Client X refuses to implement protective measures and the confirmed risk to the community's drinking water source persists. The community that relies on the watershed as a primary drinking water source is a third party to the contract between Engineer L and Client X, and Client X cannot waive the community's public health interests through a private business decision. Code Section I.1 places the safety, health, and welfare of the public as paramount, and Code Section II.1.a requires that when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, the engineer must notify the proper authority. Client X's explicit refusal to implement safeguards while declaring intent to address compliance issues 'later, if needed' constitutes precisely the kind of overruling of professional judgment that triggers this notification obligation. Withdrawal from the project alone is insufficient because it does not protect the community — it merely removes Engineer L from the situation while leaving the risk unaddressed. The obligation to notify the State Pollution Control Authority is therefore not merely permissible but ethically required once Client X refuses safeguards and the confirmed risk to a public drinking water source remains active.
In response to Q103: Engineer L's silence about the preliminary risk concern during the suspension period constitutes a material omission under Code Section III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing material misrepresentations of fact or omissions that would create a misleading impression. When Client X and Engineer L communicated about the suspension, the conversation concerned the future of a stormwater management project whose entire purpose included protecting the community's drinking water source. Engineer L's failure to mention a professionally recognized concern about that very risk — the core subject matter of the engagement — created a misleading impression that the project was simply paused for financial reasons with no outstanding technical concerns. A client making an informed decision about whether and when to resume a project has a material interest in knowing that the engineer has identified a potential risk to the project's primary public safety objective. The omission was not rendered permissible by the lack of quantification, because Code Section III.3.a addresses omissions that distort the overall picture, not only false affirmative statements. The Board's conclusion that Engineer L's silence was not unethical therefore rests on a narrow reading of the disclosure obligation that does not fully account for the materiality of the omitted concern in the context of the specific communications that occurred at suspension.
In response to Q104: If Engineer L withdraws from the project after Client X refuses safeguards, Engineer L bears a professional responsibility to ensure that any successor engineer is fully informed of the identified stormwater runoff risks before taking over the work. This obligation derives from Code Section I.1's paramount duty to public welfare and from the general professional principle that withdrawal from a project does not extinguish the duty to prevent foreseeable harm to third parties. A successor engineer who is unaware of the confirmed runoff risk and the client's explicit refusal to implement protective measures would be placed in the same position Engineer L occupied before the historic rainfall event — designing a system without knowledge of a material public health hazard. Engineer L's unique knowledge of the site-specific risk, the qualitative risk estimates from additional studies, and Client X's stated intent to defer compliance creates an asymmetry of information that Engineer L cannot ethically exploit through silence. Practically, this obligation may be fulfilled by disclosing the risk findings to the successor engineer directly, by ensuring the risk documentation is part of the project record, or — if Client X refuses to permit such disclosure — by treating that refusal as an additional trigger for regulatory notification to the State Pollution Control Authority.
In response to Q201: The principle of faithful agency to Client X and the principle of public welfare protection for the drinking water community are in direct and irresolvable conflict in this case once Client X refuses to implement protective measures. The Code resolves this conflict explicitly and categorically: Code Section I.1 places public safety, health, and welfare as paramount, and Code Section I.4's faithful agent duty is expressly subordinate to that paramount obligation. Faithful agency is not an absolute virtue — it is a conditional one that operates within the boundary set by public welfare. The condition that terminates the faithful agent duty is precisely the situation Engineer L now faces: a confirmed risk to a community's primary drinking water source, a client who has explicitly refused to mitigate that risk, and a client who has declared intent to defer legal compliance. At this point, continued faithful agency to Client X would require Engineer L to act against the public interest, which the Code does not permit. The principle of public welfare protection must categorically prevail, and it does so not by overriding the faithful agent duty through a balancing test but by defining the outer boundary at which that duty ceases to apply.
In response to Q301 and Q304 from a deontological perspective: Engineer L incurred a categorical duty of disclosure to the community whose drinking water was at risk, independent of whether the risk had been formally quantified at the time of suspension. Deontological ethics grounds duties in the nature of the relationship and the rational capacity of those affected, not in the probability calculus of harm. The community members who rely on the watershed as their primary drinking water source are rational persons whose autonomy and welfare are directly implicated by Engineer L's professional decisions. A categorical duty to disclose material risks to those who cannot protect themselves from those risks — because they are not parties to the contract and have no access to the technical information — arises from the engineer's unique epistemic position and the community's corresponding vulnerability. Engineer L's later disclosure to Client X after the historic rainfall partially fulfills this duty but does not retroactively satisfy the earlier obligation. Furthermore, once Client X explicitly refused safeguards and declared intent to defer compliance, Engineer L incurred a positive duty not merely to withdraw but to report the confirmed risk to the State Pollution Control Authority. This duty is not derived from consequences but from the deontological principle that one may not use another person — here, the drinking water community — merely as a means to the ends of a private contractual relationship. Client X's refusal to implement safeguards, if left unreported, effectively uses the community's health as an uncompensated externality of the development project.
In response to Q302: The Board's permissive ruling on Engineer L's silence at the time of project suspension creates a precedent with significant consequentialist risk. By holding that an engineer need not disclose a preliminary, unquantified risk concern when a project is suspended, the Board implicitly permits engineers to treat financial disruption as a morally convenient pause point — a moment at which disclosure obligations are suspended alongside the work itself. The consequentialist concern is that this precedent, applied across many similar cases, would systematically delay the communication of professionally recognized public health risks to the clients and communities who most need that information to make protective decisions. In this specific case, if Engineer L had disclosed the preliminary concern at suspension, Client X would have had several months to evaluate the risk, seek additional expert input, and potentially implement low-cost early-stage protective measures before the historic rainfall event elevated the risk to a confirmed level. The Board's ruling forecloses that protective pathway and rewards silence. A consequentialist analysis therefore suggests the Board's conclusion on Q1, while defensible on narrow grounds, produces a suboptimal rule when generalized — one that trades short-term professional comfort for long-term public health exposure.
In response to Q303 and Q306 from a virtue ethics perspective: Engineer L's notification to Client X of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk after resumption demonstrates a degree of professional courage and integrity, but it does not fully redeem the earlier silence and reveals a pattern that virtue ethics would characterize as moral minimalism — acting only when the evidence becomes undeniable rather than when professional judgment first identifies a genuine concern. The virtue of courage in professional practice requires acting on one's best judgment even when the evidence is incomplete and the client relationship creates pressure toward silence. Engineer L possessed the domain expertise to recognize a material risk during the preliminary design phase and chose not to communicate it. This is not the behavior of a courageous professional but of one who manages disclosure strategically to minimize friction. Regarding Code Section I.4's faithful agent duty: in this case, Client X's insistence on proceeding without safeguards while deferring compliance obligations transforms faithful agency from a professional virtue into complicity. The outer moral boundary of the faithful agent duty is reached when loyalty to a client requires an engineer to remain silent about a confirmed public health risk that the client has explicitly chosen not to address. At that boundary, continued faithful agency is not a virtue — it is a vice that the Code's paramount public welfare obligation is specifically designed to prevent.
In response to Q305: Engineer L's withdrawal from the project without regulatory reporting would not, by itself, protect the community's drinking water source and could produce a worse public health outcome than continued engagement under protest. If Engineer L withdraws silently, Client X retains the ability to hire a successor engineer who may be unaware of the confirmed runoff risk, the site-specific stormwater dynamics, the historic rainfall data, and Client X's explicit refusal to implement safeguards. A less informed or less conscientious successor engineer might proceed without raising the same concerns, effectively laundering the risk through a change in personnel. The consequentialist calculus therefore does not favor simple withdrawal as the terminal ethical act. However, continued engagement under protest — working on the project while formally objecting to the absence of safeguards — is also ethically problematic because it lends Engineer L's professional credibility to a design that Engineer L has identified as posing a confirmed public health risk. The resolution that best serves the consequentialist goal of protecting the community's drinking water is a graduated escalation sequence: formal written objection to Client X, withdrawal if Client X persists, notification to any successor engineer of the confirmed risk, and regulatory reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority if Client X's refusal to implement safeguards leaves the public health risk unaddressed.
In response to Q401 and Q402: If Engineer L had disclosed the preliminary, unquantified stormwater risk concern to Client X at the moment of project suspension, Client X would have been materially better positioned to make an informed decision about resumption timing, scope, and investment in protective measures. The several months of suspension represented a window during which Client X could have commissioned independent risk assessment, consulted with the State Pollution Control Authority, or incorporated low-cost protective design elements into the project's revised scope before the historic rainfall event elevated the risk to a confirmed level. Engineer L's silence foreclosed this protective pathway. Regarding Q402: if the historic heavy rainfall had occurred during the suspension period rather than after resumption, Engineer L would have had an obligation to proactively contact Client X to disclose the now-elevated risk even though work was formally suspended. The suspension of contractual work does not suspend the engineer's professional duty to the public under Code Section I.1, nor does it suspend the duty to provide truthful and complete information under Code Section II.3.a. An engineer who possesses site-specific knowledge and domain expertise, and who observes an event that materially changes the risk profile of a project they designed, cannot ethically remain silent on the grounds that the contract is paused. The duty to disclose follows the knowledge, not the billing cycle.
In response to Q403: If Client X had agreed to implement some but not all of the protective measures identified by Engineer L — reducing but not eliminating the risk of runoff into the community's drinking water watershed — the ethical permissibility of Engineer L's continued work would depend on whether the residual risk, after partial implementation, falls within the range of risk that local environmental standards and professional judgment consider acceptable for a primary drinking water source. The ethical threshold is not a binary choice between full safeguards and none. However, the threshold is also not merely a matter of engineering judgment in isolation: Code Section I.1's paramount public welfare obligation and the applicable local environmental standards that Engineer L identified as requiring steps to safeguard public water sources establish an external normative floor below which residual risk cannot be accepted regardless of client budget constraints. If partial implementation brings the residual risk within the bounds of what local environmental standards permit and what Engineer L's professional judgment considers consistent with protecting the community's drinking water, continued work would be ethically permissible. If partial implementation leaves the residual risk above that floor — even if it represents an improvement over no safeguards — Engineer L would face the same ethical impermissibility as in the case of complete refusal. The critical variable is not the degree of improvement but whether the remaining risk is consistent with the paramount duty to public welfare and with applicable legal standards.
In response to Q404: Engineer L's escalation of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk directly to the State Pollution Control Authority after Client X refused to implement safeguards would be ethically required, not merely permissible, and would not constitute a breach of the faithful agent duty. The precedent from BER Case 84-5 — in which an engineer who continued work after a client declined to hire a full-time on-site project representative was found to have violated Code Section II.1.a by abandoning the duty to the public in favor of the client's economic concerns — directly informs this analysis. In that case, the Board held that when a client's economic decision creates conditions that endanger life or property, the engineer's obligation to the public overrides the obligation to the client. The present case presents a structurally identical situation: Client X's budget-driven refusal to implement protective measures creates conditions that endanger the community's primary drinking water source, and Client X has explicitly stated intent to defer compliance. Under Code Section II.1.a, when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, the engineer shall notify the proper authority. The State Pollution Control Authority is precisely the proper authority for a confirmed risk of stormwater runoff into a community drinking water watershed. Regulatory reporting in this context is not a breach of faithful agency — it is the fulfillment of the paramount obligation that defines the outer boundary of faithful agency.
The tension between faithful agency to Client X and paramount public welfare protection was resolved not by treating the two principles as co-equal and balancing them situationally, but by applying a threshold-triggered hierarchy: faithful agency governs Engineer L's conduct up to the point at which a risk to public health becomes sufficiently concrete and confirmed to trigger the public-safety paramount duty. Before the historic rainfall event and the additional studies, the risk remained unquantified and preliminary, placing Engineer L within the domain of faithful agency, where silence about speculative concerns was permissible. After the risk was qualitatively confirmed, the public-welfare principle displaced client loyalty as the controlling norm, obligating Engineer L to notify Client X and recommend protective measures regardless of budget pressure. This case therefore teaches that the two principles do not conflict in a permanent or categorical way; rather, faithful agency occupies the default position and public welfare protection becomes mandatory only when the engineer's professional judgment crosses from concern to confirmation. The practical implication is that the threshold is not a bright legal line but a professional judgment call, and engineers bear the burden of honestly assessing when their own expertise has moved a risk from speculative to sufficiently founded to trigger the higher duty.
The principle of providing only technically founded opinions — which justified Engineer L's silence during the suspension period — and the principle of environmental stewardship for the watershed were not fully reconciled by the Board's reasoning; they were sequenced rather than synthesized. The Board implicitly accepted that environmental stewardship does not demand precautionary disclosure before data are sufficient to support a professional opinion, meaning that the Code's truthfulness and founded-opinion provisions function as a procedural gate on the public-welfare duty rather than as a competing value. This sequencing has a significant implication: it places the entire moral weight of community protection on the engineer's honest self-assessment of when the evidentiary threshold has been crossed, with no external check. The case therefore reveals a structural gap — the Code's architecture assumes engineers will err on the side of earlier rather than later disclosure when the affected interest is a primary drinking water source, but it provides no explicit mechanism to enforce that assumption. Environmental stewardship for the watershed thus functions in this case as a background norm that shapes the urgency with which Engineer L should pursue quantification, rather than as an independent trigger for disclosure before quantification is complete. Engineers working near sensitive public resources should internalize this as a duty to accelerate risk quantification, not merely to disclose once quantification is convenient.
Client X's invocation of budget pressure as justification for refusing protective measures did not and cannot override Engineer L's independent obligation to comply with local environmental standards, and the principle of resisting client budget pressure is not merely a professional preference but a structural requirement of the Code's public-safety paramount norm. The case makes clear that when a client's financial position is used to defer compliance with environmental law — particularly law designed to protect a community's primary drinking water source — the faithful agent duty reaches its outer moral boundary. At that boundary, continued work without safeguards would transform Engineer L from a professional exercising judgment under financial constraint into an instrument of the client's non-compliance. The Board's conclusion that it would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working under those conditions confirms that faithful agency is a bounded virtue: it is legitimate and obligatory within the space of lawful, safety-respecting client decisions, but it ceases to be a virtue and becomes complicity when the client's decision crosses into confirmed public health risk and regulatory non-compliance. This principle interaction — budget pressure resistance overriding faithful agency when environmental law compliance is at stake — establishes that legal compliance with public-health-protective environmental standards is a non-negotiable floor beneath which no client financial argument can reach.
Should Engineer L have disclosed the preliminary stormwater risk concern to Client X at the time of work suspension, even though the risk had not yet been quantified or confirmed?
Engineer L identified a preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk to the community drinking water source during the design phase, but did not disclose this concern to Client X at the time work was suspended. The core question is whether Engineer L was obligated to disclose an unquantified, preliminary risk at the moment of suspension, or whether silence was permissible until the risk could be confirmed through further study.
Inform Client X at the time of work suspension that a preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk to the drinking water source has been identified, making clear that the concern is unquantified and that further study is needed before its magnitude can be assessed.
Withhold communication of the stormwater concern until additional studies are completed and the risk can be characterized with sufficient confidence to constitute a reportable finding, avoiding premature alarm based on unverified preliminary observations.
Document the preliminary concern in internal project records and propose to Client X that the scope of resumed work include a formal risk assessment, without characterizing the concern as a disclosed risk finding until the assessment is complete.
Should Engineer L have conducted further quantitative analysis to characterize the stormwater risk before presenting findings to Client X, or was a qualitative risk estimation sufficient to fulfill the environmental risk assessment obligation?
After work resumed following a historic rainfall event, Engineer L conducted additional studies and qualitatively estimated the risk that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff to reach the watershed. The question is whether Engineer L was obligated to quantify or more fully characterize this risk before concluding the analysis, or whether a qualitative estimate was sufficient to discharge the environmental risk assessment duty.
Present Client X with the qualitative finding that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff to reach the watershed, recommend protective measures, and allow Client X to commission further quantitative study if desired, treating the qualitative estimate as sufficient to discharge the immediate assessment obligation.
Expand the scope of additional studies to produce a quantitative estimate of risk probability and magnitude before presenting findings to Client X, ensuring that the client and any regulatory authorities receive actionable numerical data rather than a qualitative characterization.
Disclose the qualitative risk finding to Client X immediately while explicitly recommending that a separate, dedicated quantitative risk assessment be commissioned as a condition of proceeding, making clear that the current estimate is preliminary and that project continuation without further study carries uncharacterized risk.
Should Engineer L refuse to continue work when Client X declines to implement recommended protective measures and insists on proceeding without safeguards, or should Engineer L continue work while documenting the client's decision?
After Engineer L disclosed the stormwater risk and recommended protective measures, Client X declined to invest in those measures and insisted on proceeding with the project without safeguards. Engineer L faced the decision of whether to continue work under client instruction or to refuse continuation on the grounds that proceeding without protective measures would compromise public safety and would not constitute a successful project outcome.
Decline to proceed with project work until Client X agrees to implement the recommended protective measures, advising Client X that continuing without safeguards would not constitute a successful project and that Engineer L cannot ethically participate in work that poses an unmitigated risk to the community drinking water source.
Proceed with the project as directed by Client X, documenting in writing that the client was informed of the risk, that protective measures were recommended, and that the client made an informed decision to decline those measures, treating the documented disclosure as sufficient to discharge Engineer L's professional obligation.
Continue project work as directed by Client X while simultaneously reporting the identified risk and the client's refusal to implement protective measures to the relevant regulatory authority, allowing the regulatory process to determine whether the project may proceed.
Should Engineer L report the stormwater risk and Client X's refusal to implement protective measures to the relevant regulatory authority, even though doing so would be contrary to Client X's instructions?
When Client X refused to implement protective measures and insisted on proceeding, Engineer L faced the question of whether to report the identified risk and the client's refusal to the relevant regulatory authority. Local environmental standards required steps to safeguard public water sources, and Client X's instruction to proceed without safeguards potentially conflicted with those standards.
Notify the relevant regulatory authority of the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source and of Client X's refusal to implement protective measures, fulfilling the obligation to protect public health even when doing so is contrary to client instructions.
Refuse to continue work and withdraw from the project, but treat the decision to withdraw as sufficient to discharge the public safety obligation without making an affirmative report to regulatory authorities, on the grounds that Engineer L's personal non-participation removes the immediate risk of professional complicity.
Before making any regulatory report, consult legal counsel to determine whether the identified risk and Client X's refusal to act meet the threshold for mandatory regulatory notification under applicable law and professional standards, delaying the reporting decision until the legal and professional obligations are clarified.
Should Engineer L treat the faithful agent duty to Client X as bounded by independent public safety obligations, or should Engineer L defer to Client X's informed business decisions about risk tolerance and protective measures?
Throughout the project, Engineer L served as a faithful agent to Client X while also bearing obligations to public safety and environmental protection. When Client X's instructions conflicted with those obligations, Engineer L had to determine where the boundary of the faithful agent duty lies and whether serving the client's stated preferences was compatible with the engineer's independent professional obligations.
Treat the faithful agent obligation as requiring full compliance with Client X's instructions only up to the point where those instructions conflict with independent public safety obligations, and refuse to follow client instructions that would require omitting safety findings, continuing unsafe work, or suppressing regulatory reports.
Treat the faithful agent obligation as satisfied by full disclosure of the risk and recommendation of protective measures, and defer to Client X's informed business decision about risk tolerance and cost, continuing work as directed while maintaining documentation of the disclosed risk and client override.
Engage a neutral third party, such as a professional ethics board or senior firm partner, to mediate the conflict between the faithful agent duty and the public safety obligation before taking unilateral action to refuse work or report to regulatory authorities, preserving the client relationship while seeking authoritative guidance on the boundary of permissible deference.
Engineer A 1984 Cost Override Continuation
Engineer A recommended the client hire a full-time on-site project representative because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during construction. The client declined on cost grounds and Engineer A continued work, which the BER found violated Code section II.1.a.
Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from continuing work on the project after the client declined to hire a full-time on-site project representative on cost grounds, because doing so required abandoning the paramount public safety duty in favor of the client's economic concerns.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.1.a; BER Case 84-5
After the client declined to hire the on-site project representative and Engineer A continued work
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a.
The problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Safety Continuation Constraint'
Engineer A's environmental firm identified a potential threat to a threatened bird species during analysis of a property adjacent to a wetlands area proposed for residential condominium development. Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern to the developer client but omitted it from the written report submitted to the public authority.
Verbal Disclosure Written Report Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from treating a verbal mention of the threatened bird species concern to the developer client as a substitute for including that finding in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.a; BER Case 07-6
At the time of preparing and submitting the written report to the public authority
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal.
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Verbal Disclosure Written Report Constraint'
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Fundamental Canon I.1
Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public
Cited as the primary obligation requiring engineers to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, framing the central ethical conflict in the case.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'NSPE Code Provision'
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Fundamental Canon I.4
Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee
under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee
Cited as the competing obligation requiring engineers to act as faithful agents or trustees for their clients, forming one side of the central ethical dilemma.
NSPE Code Section II.1.a Public Safety Obligation
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Rule of Practice II.1.a
Cited in BER Case 84-5 analysis as the provision violated when an engineer abandons the duty to the public in favor of a client's economic concerns.
NSPE Code Section II.3.a Objective Truthful Reports
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Rule of Practice II.3.a
Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
Cited as requiring engineers to be objective and truthful in professional reports and to include all relevant and pertinent information, grounding the disclosure obligation in BER Case 07-6 and the present case.
NSPE Code Section II.3.b Founded Technical Opinions
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Rule of Practice II.3.b
per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts
Cited to establish that engineers may express public technical opinions only when founded upon knowledge of the facts, used to distinguish Engineer L's early concern from a disclosable fact.
NSPE Code Section III.1.b Unsuccessful Project Advisement
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.1.b
Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful.
Cited as requiring engineers to advise clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful, including from a safety standpoint, and as the basis for finding Engineer L cannot ethically continue work without adequate safeguards.
NSPE Code Section III.3.a Client Notification
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.3.a
Cited alongside other code sections as grounding Engineer L's obligation to notify Client X of the identified stormwater runoff risk.
This question arose because Engineer L's silence at suspension sits at the boundary between two legitimate professional duties: the duty to protect the public from harm and the duty to speak only from a founded technical basis. The question could not be resolved without determining whether Engineer L's preliminary concern was substantial enough to trigger proactive disclosure or whether the absence of confirmed data made silence professionally defensible.
The question emerged because Engineer L occupied two simultaneous positions: a professional bound by NSPE Code Section II.3.b to issue only technically founded opinions, and a professional bound by NSPE Code Section I.1 to treat public health as paramount. The Heavy Rainfall Event and subsequent Risk Qualification Finding made the gap between these two positions concrete, because the risk became credible before it became fully quantified, forcing a choice between acting on incomplete data and waiting while a drinking water source remained potentially at risk.
The question arose because Engineer L held an unconfirmed concern about drinking water risk at the time of project suspension and chose not to disclose it, creating a gap between the moment the concern existed and the moment it was formally communicated. Deontological ethics treats the duty of disclosure as independent of consequences and independent of whether harm was later confirmed, so the question forces a determination of whether the categorical obligation attached at the moment of awareness or only at the moment of verified fact.
This question arose because the Board's permissibility finding on Engineer L's silence established a precedent that ties disclosure timing to quantification status, and a consequentialist analysis then asks whether that precedent produces net harm by giving engineers a structurally available escape from early disclosure whenever a project suspension coincides with an unresolved risk. The question is not merely about Engineer L's individual conduct but about whether the warrant the Board endorsed, that unquantified concern does not yet obligate disclosure, is a rule that generates acceptable outcomes across the full population of cases where financial disruption and foreseeable public health risk overlap.
This question arose because the sequence of Engineer L's actions, specifically silence during the preliminary concern phase followed by disclosure only after evidence became undeniable, fits two incompatible character narratives equally well. One narrative is that Engineer L exercised disciplined professional judgment by waiting for confirmed data before making a serious public welfare claim, and the other is that Engineer L deferred disclosure until avoidance was no longer possible, which is the behavioral signature of moral minimalism rather than courage or integrity.
This question emerged because the factual record placed Engineer L at the precise boundary where two foundational code obligations, NSPE Code Section I.1 on public paramountcy and NSPE Code Section I.4 on faithful agency, point toward incompatible conclusions about what a positive duty requires after client override. The question could not be resolved by appeal to either warrant alone because Client X's explicit refusal and deferral declaration simultaneously satisfied the trigger conditions for regulatory escalation under the public welfare warrant and raised the rebuttal condition that the engineer's contractual role does not extend to unilateral regulatory reporting on a client's behalf.
The question emerged because Engineer L's ethical obligation to refuse complicity in a public health risk, grounded in NSPE Code Section I.1 and the Client Override Regulatory Reporting Obligation, was contested by a consequentialist rebuttal that the real-world effect of withdrawal without disclosure could be worse for the community than staying on the project. The Safeguard Refusal event and the confirmed stormwater runoff risk created a situation where the standard deontological exit move, withdrawal, could not be evaluated without also assessing its downstream causal consequences for the drinking water source.
This question arose because the Safeguard Refusal event placed Engineer L at the precise boundary where NSPE Code Section I.4 faithful agency and Code Section I.1 public paramountcy produce directly opposed action prescriptions. Virtue ethics sharpens the question further by asking not just what Engineer L must do but what kind of professional character is expressed by each choice, making the moral quality of loyalty itself the contested issue rather than only the rule to follow.
The question arose because Engineer L's silence at suspension and the subsequent rainfall event together created a counterfactual gap: if early disclosure had occurred, Client X might have built the risk into any resumption decision, potentially avoiding the escalation to a confirmed public health threat. The question forces a determination of whether the disclosure obligation attaches to the moment a concern is first perceived or only to the moment it is confirmed, and that threshold is genuinely contested by competing warrants in the professional code.
This question arose because the Board's ethical permissibility determination for Engineer L's silence was anchored to a specific sequence in which the Heavy Rainfall Event and Risk Qualification Finding occurred after Project Resumption, and the question tests whether that sequence was doing ethical work or whether the underlying public welfare warrant would have imposed a proactive contact duty regardless of the formal contractual status. The tension between the Suspension Period Risk Disclosure Obligation and the Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary becomes acute precisely because the suspension removes the normal professional context that triggers reporting duties, yet the public safety risk does not pause alongside the contract.
The question emerged because Client X's partial acceptance of safeguards created a middle state that the binary framing of Continued Work Decision as either permissible or impermissible does not resolve. The tension between Engineer L Faithful Agent Boundary and Engineer L Client Budget Pressure Refusal forces a threshold inquiry that the original case analysis, which addressed total refusal, did not need to answer.
This question arose because Engineer L reached a point where two foundational professional obligations, loyalty to the client and protection of the public, pulled in opposite directions after Client X refused safeguards that Engineer L had confirmed were necessary. The question could not be resolved by appealing to either obligation alone, because each obligation has a recognized limit where the other takes precedence, and the facts placed Engineer L precisely at that contested boundary.
The question emerged because Engineer L occupied a structural position where two legitimate professional obligations pointed toward opposite actions after Client X refused safeguards. BER Case 84-5 established that economic pressure from a client cannot justify abandoning public safety duty, but it did not specify whether that duty extends to affirmative regulatory reporting or stops at client notification and withdrawal, leaving the permissibility boundary genuinely contested.
The question emerged because Engineer L's situation placed two legitimate professional norms in direct conflict at the same moment in time. The sequence from unquantified concern, to suspension silence, to post-rainfall confirmation forced a determination of whether the disclosure clock starts at professional recognition or at technical confirmation, and no explicit rule in the code resolves that timing question.
This question arose because Engineer L's situation produced a structural gap in standard professional obligation: the contract governed the relationship with Client X, but the confirmed risk fell on a community that had no contractual standing and no knowledge of the threat. The gap between withdrawal as a sufficient remedy and notification as a necessary one could not be resolved by appealing to either the faithful agent duty or the public safety duty alone, because each warrant, applied consistently, pointed to a different stopping point for Engineer L's responsibility.
The question arose because Engineer L possessed awareness of a potential risk before suspension but chose silence, and the subsequent confirmation of that risk after the rainfall event made the earlier silence retrospectively significant. The absence of any explicit Code rule distinguishing a preliminary concern from a reportable fact forced the question of whether the truthfulness provisions apply to the state of awareness itself or only to findings that meet a technical evidentiary standard.
This question emerged because Engineer L's withdrawal does not erase the confirmed risk knowledge that Engineer L uniquely holds from prior studies conducted after the heavy rainfall event. The tension between the termination of the client relationship and the continuing public safety obligation creates genuine uncertainty about whether Engineer L bears a residual duty to inform a successor, and if so, through what mechanism that duty should be discharged.
This question emerged because Engineer L occupied two simultaneous role obligations after Client X refused safeguards. The NSPE Code encodes both duties without specifying the precise factual conditions under which one categorically displaces the other, so the conflict between NSPE Code Section I.4 and NSPE Code Section I.1 became a live question rather than a settled one once Client X's refusal made the two obligations point in opposite directions.
This question arose because Engineer L's silence during the suspension was justified by one coherent warrant, that technical opinions must be grounded in fact, yet that same silence is challenged by a competing warrant, that environmental stewardship of a watershed demands earlier precautionary communication when the potential harm is severe and public. The question could not be resolved by appealing to either principle alone because each principle has legitimate standing in the NSPE code, and the data, an unconfirmed but plausible risk to a community drinking water source, sits exactly at the boundary where both warrants claim authority.
This question emerged because the Safeguard Refusal event, grounded in Client X's cited budget limitations, activated both the Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation and the Engineer L Environmental Law Compliance principle simultaneously, creating a structural ambiguity in the argument. The question asks whether these two warrants are redundant, sequential, or independently action-forcing, which the data alone does not resolve.
Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?
At what point does an unquantified but professionally recognized risk become sufficiently concrete to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation, and did Engineer L's preliminary concern during the initial design phase already cross that threshold?
Given that the affected community relies on the watershed as a primary drinking water source and was never a party to the contract, does Engineer L have an independent obligation to notify that community or a relevant regulatory authority when Client X refuses to implement protective measures, beyond simply withdrawing from the project?
Does Engineer L's silence about the preliminary risk concern during the suspension period constitute a material omission under the Code's truthfulness provisions, even if the risk had not yet been formally quantified?
If Engineer L withdraws from the project after Client X refuses safeguards, what professional responsibility does Engineer L bear to ensure that a successor engineer is fully informed of the identified stormwater runoff risks before taking over the work?
Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L?
Does the principle of faithful agency to Client X — which ordinarily requires Engineer L to respect the client's financial constraints and business decisions — come into direct conflict with the principle of public welfare protection for the drinking water community, and if so, which principle must categorically prevail and under what conditions?
How should the principle of disclosing risk only after it meets a factual threshold — which justified Engineer L's silence during the suspension — be reconciled with the principle of environmental stewardship for the watershed, which might demand earlier precautionary communication even when data are incomplete?
When Client X invokes budget pressure as justification for deferring safeguards, does the principle of resisting client budget pressure override the principle of environmental law compliance — and does Engineer L's obligation to comply with local environmental standards independently compel action regardless of the client's financial position?
Is there an irresolvable tension between the principle that engineers should provide technically founded opinions — which requires sufficient data before making public safety claims — and the principle of public welfare protection for the drinking water source, which may demand precautionary warnings before full quantification is possible?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer L fulfill a categorical duty of disclosure to the community whose drinking water was at risk, independent of whether the risk had been formally quantified at the time of project suspension?
From a consequentialist standpoint, does the Board's permissive ruling on Engineer L's silence at suspension create a precedent that could produce net harm by allowing engineers to defer disclosure of unquantified but foreseeable public health risks whenever financial disruption provides a convenient pause point?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer L demonstrate the professional virtues of courage and integrity by notifying Client X of confirmed stormwater runoff risk after resumption, and does this later disclosure redeem the earlier silence, or does it reveal a pattern of moral minimalism — acting only when the evidence becomes undeniable?
From a deontological perspective, once Client X explicitly refused to implement the protective measures identified by Engineer L and declared intent to defer compliance issues, did Engineer L incur a positive duty not merely to withdraw from the project but to report the confirmed risk to the relevant regulatory authority, given that the community's drinking water source constitutes a third-party public interest that neither party to the contract can waive?
From a consequentialist standpoint, would Engineer L's withdrawal from the project without regulatory reporting actually protect the community's drinking water, or would it merely transfer the risk to a less qualified or less conscientious successor engineer, thereby producing a worse public health outcome than continued engagement under protest?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does the faithful agent duty described in Code Section I.4 represent a genuine professional virtue in this case, or does Client X's insistence on proceeding without safeguards transform faithful agency into complicity, revealing the outer moral boundary at which loyalty to a client ceases to be a virtue and becomes a vice?
If Engineer L had disclosed the preliminary, unquantified stormwater risk concern to Client X at the moment of project suspension, would Client X have been better positioned to make an informed decision about whether to resume the project later, and would such early disclosure have prevented the escalation to a confirmed public health risk after the historic rainfall event?
What if the historic heavy rainfall had occurred during the suspension period rather than after resumption — would Engineer L have had an obligation to proactively contact Client X to disclose the now-elevated risk even though work was formally suspended, and would silence during that period have been ethically permissible under the Board's reasoning?
If Client X had agreed to implement some but not all of the protective measures identified by Engineer L — reducing but not eliminating the risk of runoff into the community's drinking water watershed — would it have been ethical for Engineer L to continue working on the project, and where precisely does the ethical threshold lie between acceptable residual risk and an unacceptable compromise of public health?
What if Engineer L had escalated the confirmed stormwater runoff risk directly to the State Pollution Control Authority after Client X refused to implement safeguards — would such regulatory reporting have been ethically required, ethically permissible, or a breach of the faithful agent duty, and how does the precedent from BER Case 84-5 inform this escalation question?
Given that Engineer L's stormwater concern was not yet quantified at the time Client X requested suspension, and given that Engineer L later fulfilled the disclosure obligation once the risk was confirmed, the board concluded that silence at suspension was permissible because the fact-threshold for mandatory disclosure had not yet been crossed and the omission did not constitute a material misrepresentation under the circumstances.
Given that Client X refused safeguards for a confirmed drinking water risk and declared intent to defer compliance, the board concluded that the faithful agent duty had reached its outer boundary as defined by Code Section I.1, and that public welfare protection must prevail not through a balancing test but because the Code's hierarchy categorically subordinates faithful agency to the paramount public welfare obligation under precisely these conditions.
Given that Engineer L's unique epistemic position created a corresponding vulnerability in the drinking water community, and that Client X's explicit refusal to implement safeguards left that vulnerability unaddressed, the board concluded that a categorical duty of disclosure to the community or its regulatory representative arose independently of the contractual relationship and could not be waived by either contracting party.
Given that the board's ruling implicitly permits engineers to treat project suspension as a morally convenient pause point for disclosure obligations, the board identified a consequentialist defect in that rule: across many similar cases, it systematically delays communication of professionally recognized risks to the parties best positioned to act on them, trading short-term professional comfort for long-term public health exposure.
Given that Engineer L delayed disclosure until the evidence was undeniable and then faced a client who refused to act on that disclosure, the board concluded that the later notification demonstrated moral minimalism rather than professional courage, and that the faithful agent duty ceased to be a virtue at the precise point where honoring it required Engineer L to remain silent about a confirmed risk to a third-party public that had no voice in the contractual relationship.
Given that silent withdrawal would transfer the confirmed risk to a potentially less informed successor engineer and continued engagement would compromise Engineer L's professional integrity, the board concluded that the consequentialist goal of protecting the community's drinking water required a graduated escalation sequence culminating in regulatory reporting, because only regulatory reporting addressed the risk in a way that did not depend on Client X's cooperation or a successor engineer's diligence.
Given that Engineer L held site-specific stormwater knowledge that Client X lacked, and given that the suspension period represented a concrete window for protective action that Engineer L's silence foreclosed, the board concluded that the duty to disclose material risk information followed Engineer L's knowledge rather than the billing cycle, and that this duty would have required proactive contact with Client X even during the suspension period if the historic rainfall had occurred then.
Given that the risk had been confirmed and that local environmental standards independently constrained acceptable residual risk to a primary drinking water source, the board concluded that the ethical permissibility of continued work turned entirely on whether partial safeguards brought residual risk within the legally and professionally defined floor, not on whether the client had made a good-faith effort to reduce costs.
Given that Client X's refusal was explicit and budget-driven and that the risk to the community drinking water source had been professionally confirmed, the board concluded that Code Section II.1.a converted what might otherwise be a permissible disclosure into a mandatory one, and that the BER Case 84-5 precedent directly controlled because the structural facts were identical.
Given that the risk was genuinely unquantified before the rainfall event and genuinely confirmed afterward, the board concluded that the two principles did not conflict categorically but were sequenced by an evidentiary threshold, and that Engineer L's conduct was permissible in the earlier phase and obligatory in the later phase precisely because the factual basis for a professional opinion changed between the two periods.
Given that Engineer L lacked sufficient data to form a founded opinion during the suspension period and that the Code's truthfulness provisions require a factual basis before public safety claims are made, the board concluded that environmental stewardship for the watershed did not independently override the founded-opinion gate, but did impose a duty to pursue quantification with greater urgency than would apply to a less sensitive resource.
Given that Engineer L had confirmed the runoff risk, notified Client X, and received an explicit refusal to implement safeguards accompanied by a declared intent to defer compliance, the board concluded that continuing work would violate the paramount duty to public welfare because the faithful agent obligation cannot extend to active participation in a project that poses a confirmed and unmitigated threat to a community drinking water source.
Given that Client X's budget-driven refusal crossed from constrained professional judgment into confirmed regulatory non-compliance affecting a primary drinking water source, the board concluded that faithful agency reached its outer moral boundary at that point, and that continued work would have transformed Engineer L from a professional into a participant in the client's non-compliance.
Given that the board accepted the preliminary concern as genuinely unquantified and given that Engineer L's later disclosure confirmed the silence was not a disposition toward systematic non-disclosure, the board concluded that the permissibility of the earlier silence is defensible but conditional on the further finding that the suspension communications were not themselves misleading and that the concern had not already crossed the factual threshold.
Given that Client X's explicit refusal and declared deferral of compliance left a confirmed public health risk unmitigated and given that withdrawal without notification could simply transfer that risk to a less informed successor, the board concluded that Engineer L's obligations extend beyond withdrawal to include full briefing of any successor engineer and, under the stronger reading of Code Section II.1.a, regulatory reporting to the State Pollution Control Authority.
Given that Engineer L did disclose the confirmed risk to Client X after resumption, the board concluded that the graduated escalation structure implicit in the Code was properly followed in this case, and that the permissibility of each earlier stage was contingent on Engineer L's timely advancement to the next stage, a conditionality the board's explicit conclusions left implicit but which is necessary to make the overall resolution coherent.
Given that Engineer L had years of relevant expertise and had already connected increasing stormwater flows to a community dependent on the watershed for drinking water, the board concluded that the preliminary concern had crossed the disclosure threshold to Client X, because Code Section II.3.b requires only a factual foundation and professional competence, not certainty or full quantification.
Given that Client X refused safeguards for a confirmed risk to a third-party community's primary drinking water source and declared intent to defer compliance, the board concluded that Engineer L bore an affirmative obligation to notify the State Pollution Control Authority, because withdrawal without reporting would merely remove Engineer L from the situation while leaving the public health hazard active and unaddressed.
Given that Engineer L's silence during suspension communications omitted a concern directly relevant to the project's drinking water protection purpose, the board's conclusion that the silence was not unethical rests on a narrow reading of Code Section III.3.a that the board itself acknowledged does not fully account for the materiality of what was left unsaid in that specific conversation.
Given that Engineer L held unique knowledge of a confirmed risk and Client X's intent to defer compliance, the board concluded that withdrawal without ensuring successor engineer awareness would transfer the public health hazard rather than resolve it, and that Client X's refusal to permit such disclosure would independently trigger the obligation to notify the State Pollution Control Authority.
BER founding before BER cases spanning environmental and disclosure issues
The BER has considered cases of this type in every decade since its founding in 1958.
BER cases spanning environmental and disclosure issues
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.85
Budget constraints are a legitimate client concern but do not override the engineer's professional obligation to recommend and, where necessary, insist upon measures necessary to protect public welfare.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.9
The faithful agent duty required Engineer L to serve Client X's legitimate interests, including advising on risks and regulatory requirements. It did not authorize Engineer L to suppress findings or continue work that perpetuated identified public risks at Client X's direction.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.8
Client X's instruction to proceed and address compliance issues later constituted a client override of engineer-identified necessary safety measures, triggering the obligation to refuse and escalate.
The community's reliance on the watershed as a primary drinking water source placed this case squarely within the scope of public welfare paramountcy. Client X's budget-based refusal to implement protective measures did not relieve Engineer L of the obligation to protect public welfare.
It did not authorize Engineer L to suppress findings or continue work that perpetuated identified public risks at Client X's direction.
Client X's budget-based refusal to implement protective measures did not relieve Engineer L of the obligation to protect public welfare.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Runoff Risk Identified as Fact State; Active Design Work State
property=terminates; happening's terminates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Unquantified Risk Concern Undisclosed State; Work Suspension State
Client Informed of Runoff Risk State; Protective Measures Recommendation Pending State
Public Safety Risk Unmitigated State; Engineer Acquiescence to Client Refusal State
Non-Disclosure Permissibility Established; Suspension Period Cleared
Elevated Stormwater Accumulation; Heightened Watershed Risk State; Concrete Risk Evidence Available
Active Design Work; Reinstated Professional Duty; Active Client Engagement
Project Suspended; Work Halted State; Reduced Communication Obligation Context
Unquantified Risk Awareness; Professional Uncertainty State
Confirmed Risk Finding; Documented Hazard State; Public Safety Risk
Unmitigated Public Safety Risk; Client Refusal State; Safeguard Absent State
property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Paramount Duty to Public Health Safety and Welfare; Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation
Paramount Duty to Public Health Safety and Welfare; Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation; Objective and Truthful Reporting Obligation; Advise Client of Project Unsuccessfulness Obligation
property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Paramount Duty to Public Health Safety and Welfare; Advise Client of Project Unsuccessfulness Obligation
Faithful Agent or Trustee Obligation; Technical Opinion Grounded in Fact Obligation
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system
After resuming work and conducting additional studies, Engineer L notified Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff to reach the watershed and community drinking water source, and advise
When Client X instructed Engineer L to proceed without implementing the additional protective measures Engineer L had identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source, the principle required Engineer L to refuse to c
Engineer L's paramount obligation was to protect the community's primary drinking water source from stormwater runoff impacts, an obligation that superseded Client X's budget concerns and instructions to proceed without additional safeguard
Client X's invocation of budget limitations as justification for declining to implement protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary for public safety constituted economic pressure that Engineer L was obligated to resist, maint
Engineer L owed a genuine duty of loyalty to Client X as the contracting party, which required advancing Client X's development interests through competent design and honest advice.
Engineer L advised Client X that local environmental standards required steps to safeguard public water sources
Engineer L's scope of work explicitly included ensuring that stormwater from the development would not impact the community's primary drinking water watershed
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L had identified a concern about increased stormwater risk but had not yet quantified it.
Engineer L was obligated to recommend specific protective measures to Client X commensurate with the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, with reference to applicable local environmental standards
Engineer L was obligated to disclose to Client X the preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk to the community drinking water source at or before the time of the work suspension, even though the risk had not yet been quantified.
After resuming work and conducting additional studies, Engineer L notified Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk
Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project outcome
Engineer L was obligated to report the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority after Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures
Engineer L was obligated to refuse to continue work on the stormwater management project after Client X declined to implement the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source
the principle required Engineer L to refuse to c
Engineer L was obligated to serve Client X's legitimate development interests while refusing to omit material safety findings or continue work in a manner that violated the paramount duty to public welfare, recognizing that the faithful age
Engineer L was obligated to recommend specific protective measures to Client X commensurate with the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, with reference to applicable local environmental standards, and to docum
Engineer L was obligated to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify or adequately characterize the stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, and upon resumption of work did conduct additional studies resulting in a qualitative
Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project outcome, so that Client X had the opportunity to reconsider before Engineer L was
Engineer L was obligated to report the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority after Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures and in
Engineer L was obligated to refuse to continue work on the stormwater management project after Client X declined to implement the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source, and t
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer L; Client X; Watershed users; Public
Engineer L; Client X; Community relying on the watershed as a drinking water source; Regulatory authorities
Engineer L; Client X; Public; Watershed users
Engineer L; Client X; Community relying on the watershed
Engineer L; Client X; Community relying on the watershed; Regulatory authorities
Engineer L; Client X; Community relying on the watershed as a drinking water source
Community relying on the watershed as a primary drinking water source; Engineer L; Client X; Regulatory authorities
Engineer L; Client X; Regulatory authorities; Community relying on the watershed
property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Professional has notified client of a risk and applicable regulatory requirements
Client explicitly declines to implement recommended safeguards
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Professional may not simply defer to client's business judgment when public safety is at stake
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Obligation to assess whether reporting to regulatory authorities is required
property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
BER conclusion that Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence and must not continue work under these conditions
Professional must not continue work on a project when client refuses safety measures and no adequate alternative safeguards exist
Duty to advise client when a project will not be successful from a safety standpoint
BER finding that Engineer A violated Code section II.1.a by abandoning the ethical duty to the public
Work is suspended or interrupted before the concern is disclosed
Professional identifies a preliminary risk concern during contracted work
Professional should communicate preliminary concerns even when unquantified
Risk is formally assessed and communicated
Client X's refusal to invest in protective measures after Engineer L confirmed the stormwater runoff risk, creating a direct conflict between client loyalty and public safety obligations
Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures despite Engineer L's notification of confirmed risk and applicable regulatory requirements
Client X's explicit refusal to invest in additional protective measures after Engineer L's confirmed risk notification
Client X's unexpected financial setbacks leading to work suspension, followed by continuing budget limitations cited when refusing additional safeguards
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Several months later, Client X's financial situation improves and Engineer L is asked to resume work... Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk.
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned... But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work.
But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work.
Several months later, Client X's financial situation improves and Engineer L is asked to resume work on the stormwater management system.
About this same time, an historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed.
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk... Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered.
However, Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations. Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards.
Client Risk Notification → Ethical Permissibility Determination
Although it does not appear Engineer L has completed a professional report per se, Engineer L’s identification of runoff risk is now “fact.” Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Client Risk Notification -- Engineer L notifies Client X of the factual runoff risk
Ethical Permissibility Determination -- BER analysis confirms notification was consistent with Code obligations
Had Engineer L failed to notify Client X of the factual risk, the conduct would have been ethically impermissible
Engineer L's notification of the risk to Client X
Proper notification of a factual risk consistent with Code = ethically permissible conduct
Private development entity that commissioned Engineer L to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development. Requested work suspension due to financial setbacks, later resumed the project, and declined to invest in additional protective measures despite Engineer L's warnings about risks to the community drinking water source.
financial_constraint: Encountered unexpected financial setbacks; cited continuing budget limitations
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations
Via class 'Private Development Client': The previously extracted class Private Development Client matches exactly: a private commercial entity commissioning engineering services for a development project whose financial interests conflict with the engineer's public welfare obligations.
Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to recognize that Client X's refusal to implement recommended protective measures due to budget constraints created an obligation to cease work rather than continue, and to act on that obligation.
Client X declined to implement Engineer L's recommended protective measures citing budget limitations and insisted on proceeding without added safeguards, stating compliance issues would be addressed later if needed.
The situation in which Client X declined to invest in additional protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards, creating the obligation for Engineer L to refuse to continue.
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations.
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability'
Engineer L Client Budget Refusal Continuation
Client X refused to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L to safeguard the community drinking water source from stormwater runoff, citing budget limitations. The BER found that Engineer L could not ethically continue work under these circumstances.
Engineer L was prohibited from continuing work on the stormwater management project after Client X refused to implement the protective measures identified by Engineer L, citing budget limitations, because doing so would require abandoning the paramount public safety duty in favor of the client's economic concerns.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.1, II.1.a; BER Case 84-5; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
After Client X refused to implement protective measures and insisted on proceeding without adequate safeguards
Client X's insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L.
Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
We note a direct parallel between the 1984 case and the facts under consideration.
Engineer L Client Deferral Non-Acceptance
Client X responded to Engineer L's safety recommendation by stating it would address compliance issues later if needed. Engineer L was constrained not to treat this deferral as an adequate response to a confirmed risk to public health, and was required to monitor whether actual remediation occurred rather than accepting the client's assurance as sufficient.
Client Remediation Monitoring Constraint
Engineer L was constrained from treating Client X's assurance that compliance issues would be addressed later as a substitute for actual implementation of protective measures, and was required to actively monitor whether Client X took remedial action rather than accepting the deferral as sufficient.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1; professional ethics obligation not to accept client assurances as substitutes for verified compliance
Following Client X's statement that compliance issues would be addressed later if needed
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Remediation Monitoring Constraint'
Engineer L Client Economic Pressure Resistance
Engineer L needed the capability to recognize that Client X's refusal to implement protective measures due to budget concerns did not override the professional obligation to cease work, and to act on that obligation.
Client X's refusal to implement stormwater protective measures on cost grounds, and Engineer L's obligation to refuse to continue work rather than proceed without the required safeguards.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer L cannot continue work when Client X refuses to invest in protective measures, drawing a direct parallel to BER Case 84-5 where Engineer A improperly continued work after the client refused to hire a safety representative due to cost.
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.' The BER felt that 'Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns.'
Via class 'Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability': The ontology contains Client Economic Pressure Resistance Capability, defined as the capability to recognize when a client's refusal to implement safety measures due to cost creates an obligation to cease work. The case text and BER Case 84-5 analysis map directly onto this capability, and it also appears in the prior-sections list as Client Budget Pressure Resistance Capability, which is a variant already matched to this ontology class.
Client X explicitly refused to implement additional protective measures recommended by Engineer L to safeguard the community drinking water source, citing budget limitations, and stated it would address compliance issues later. This explicit override of a confirmed safety recommendation constrained Engineer L to withdraw from the project rather than continue work that would require abandoning the paramount public safety duty.
Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint
When Client X explicitly overrode Engineer L's safety recommendation regarding protective measures for the community drinking water source, Engineer L was constrained to decline to continue participation in the project rather than proceed in violation of the paramount public safety duty.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1; Section II.1.a; professional ethics obligation not to subordinate public safety to client economic preferences
From the point of Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures onward
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Safety Withdrawal Constraint'
Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability
Engineer L needed the capability to distinguish between a preliminary concern about stormwater risk and a confirmed factual finding, and to calibrate disclosure obligations to that distinction.
Engineer L's stormwater management design engagement for a large residential and commercial development near a community drinking water source, spanning a suspension period and resumption of work.
Recognition that the early concern about increased stormwater risk did not yet rise to the level of a reportable fact, followed by recognition that later studies converted the risk into a confirmed finding warranting disclosure to Client X.
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact'
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact.' Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Via class 'Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability': The ontology contains an exact match: Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability, defined as the capability to distinguish between a preliminary concern and a demonstrable fact and to calibrate disclosure obligations accordingly. The case text explicitly turns on this distinction, contrasting Engineer L's early concern with the later confirmed fact of runoff risk.
Engineer L Confirmed Risk Disclosure Obligation
After resuming design work, Engineer L's additional studies identified a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed. This finding rose to the level of fact, triggering disclosure obligations. Engineer L notified Client X of the risk.
Once Engineer L's additional studies identified a confirmed risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed, Engineer L was required to include that finding in communications to Client X and relevant parties, consistent with the obligation to be objective and truthful and include all relevant and pertinent information.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, III.3.a; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
During the resumed design phase after additional studies confirmed the runoff risk
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Complete Reporting Constraint'
Engineer L Environmental Standards Compliance
The applicable local environmental standards required that the stormwater management system include steps to safeguard the community's primary drinking water source. These regulatory requirements constrained both Engineer L's design choices and Client X's ability to proceed without implementing protective measures, regardless of budget considerations.
Engineer L's stormwater management design was constrained by applicable local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources, which established mandatory design requirements that could not be waived by client preference or budget limitations.
Local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources, as referenced in the case
Throughout the design and implementation of the stormwater management system
Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Constraint'
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to distinguish between serving Client X's legitimate development interests and complying with Client X's instructions to proceed without required protective measures, and to refuse the latter while continuing to serve the former.
Client X instructed Engineer L to proceed without additional protective measures, requiring Engineer L to identify the boundary between legitimate client service and impermissible compliance with instructions that would compromise public safety.
The obligation to serve Client X's legitimate interests while refusing to omit material safety findings or continue work in a manner that compromised public safety obligations.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Boundary Judgment Capability'
Engineer L was contracted by Client X and owed duties of faithful agency, but those duties were bounded by the ethical prohibition on suppressing or omitting material safety findings about the stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, and by the prohibition on continuing work that required abandoning the public safety paramount obligation.
Engineer L's duty to serve Client X as a faithful agent was constrained by the prohibition on omitting material safety findings or continuing work in a manner that required subordinating the paramount public safety duty to the client's economic interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.4 (faithful agent duty); Section I.1 (public paramount duty)
Throughout the professional engagement with Client X
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered.
Part of Engineer L's scope of work for Client X includes ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Advocacy Boundary Constraint'
Engineer L Faithful Agent Public Safety Limit
Engineer L faced a conflict between the faithful agent obligation to Client X and the paramount duty to protect the community's drinking water source. The BER found the faithful agent duty was bounded by the public safety paramount obligation.
Engineer L's obligation to act as a faithful agent for Client X did not extend to omitting material safety findings, continuing work without adequate safeguards, or otherwise subordinating the paramount public safety duty to Client X's development and budget interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.1, I.4; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
Throughout the engagement, particularly after confirmation of the stormwater runoff risk
The present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee.
Engineer L Graduated Escalation Sequence
After confirming the stormwater risk qualitatively, Engineer L notified Client X, satisfying the first step of the graduated escalation sequence. Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and insistence on deferring compliance triggered the next step: Engineer L was constrained to either monitor remediation or, given the client's explicit refusal, escalate to regulatory authorities rather than simply continuing work or withdrawing silently.
Engineer L was constrained to follow a graduated sequence of responses upon confirming the stormwater risk: first notifying Client X directly, then monitoring whether Client X took remedial action, and only then escalating to regulatory authorities if Client X failed to act. Engineer L could not skip directly to regulatory reporting without first giving Client X the opportunity to implement protective measures.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1; Section III.3.a; professional ethics graduated escalation principle
From the point of Engineer L's qualitative risk confirmation through the period of client notification and any subsequent regulatory escalation
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Graduated Escalation Constraint'
Engineer L's situation required application of prior BER case precedents, particularly BER Cases 76-4, 84-5, and 07-6, to determine the appropriate ethical course of action regarding disclosure, project continuation, and regulatory reporting.
The BER's analysis of Engineer L's obligations drawing on a series of prior cases to establish the applicable ethical framework for the stormwater risk disclosure and project continuation dilemma.
The BER's explicit reasoning by analogy from BER Case 76-4 on regulatory reporting, BER Case 84-5 on client economic pressure, and BER Case 07-6 on objective reporting to reach conclusions about Engineer L's obligations.
BER Case 76-4 provides a foundation that other BER cases have built upon
Consistent with BER case precedent and the facts of the instant case, Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project
Via class 'Precedent Application Capability': The ontology contains Precedent Application Capability, defined as the capability to identify and apply prior professional ethics rulings and case precedents to novel situations by reasoning by analogy. The BER analysis in this case is built entirely on applying BER Cases 76-4, 84-5, 07-6, and others to Engineer L's situation, which is precisely this capability.
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to determine whether the preliminary stormwater risk concern identified during the design phase was sufficiently developed to warrant disclosure to Client X at the time of the work suspension, even though the risk had not yet been quantified.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L identified a concern about increased stormwater risk but did not disclose it to Client X when work was suspended, raising the question of whether the concern was sufficiently developed to require disclosure.
Engineer L's failure to disclose the preliminary concern at the time of suspension, which represented a failure to correctly calibrate the disclosure threshold for an identified but unquantified risk.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Threshold Capability'
Client X insisted on moving forward with the stormwater management project without implementing the protective measures identified by Engineer L. Engineer L was required under Code section III.1.b to advise Client X that the project would not be successful from a safety standpoint without those measures.
Engineer L was required to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a successful project, with success defined to include safety outcomes, before Engineer L could be said to have met professional ethics requirements.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.1.b; BER Case 84-5; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
Upon identifying that Client X intended to proceed without adequate safeguards
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk. Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a.
The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Advisory Constraint'
Engineer L needed the capability to assess whether the development project could be completed successfully in terms of safety and regulatory compliance without the recommended protective measures, and to advise Client X accordingly.
Engineer L's obligation to notify Client X that the stormwater management project would not be successful from a safety and compliance standpoint if Client X refused to implement the recommended safeguards.
Application of Code section III.1.b and BER Case 84-5 to conclude that Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that proceeding without protective measures would not constitute a successful project.
Via class 'Project Success Assessment Capability': The ontology contains Project Success Assessment Capability, defined as the capability to evaluate whether a project can be completed successfully in terms of safety and public welfare and to advise the client accordingly. BER Case 84-5 and the Engineer L analysis both turn on this capability, and it also appears in the prior-sections list as Project Success Notification Capability matched to this ontology class.
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project outcome under applicable environmental standards.
Client X insisted on proceeding without protective measures, and Engineer L was obligated to advise that this approach would not result in a project that met regulatory requirements or protected public safety.
The obligation arising from Client X's insistence on proceeding without safeguards and the applicable local environmental standards requiring steps to protect public water sources.
local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Project Success Assessment Capability'
Engineer L identified that proceeding without additional protective measures would result in a project that failed to meet local environmental standards requiring safeguarding of public water sources and that posed a confirmed risk to the community drinking water source. Engineer L was constrained to advise Client X of this projected failure before the professional ethics obligation could be considered satisfied.
Engineer L was constrained to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project outcome, because the project would fail to meet applicable local environmental standards and would pose a confirmed risk to public health, before Engineer L could be said to have met professional ethics requirements.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.1.b (unsuccessful project advisement)
At the time Engineer L identified the confirmed stormwater risk and Client X refused to implement protective measures
Engineer L Protective Measure Recommendation
Protective Measure Recommendation Capability
Engineer L possessed and exercised the capability to identify and recommend additional protective measures to Client X commensurate with the identified stormwater risk, citing both technical adequacy and local environmental standards.
After qualitatively estimating the stormwater risk, Engineer L notified Client X and recommended additional protective measures, which Client X declined to implement due to budget constraints.
Engineer L's notification to Client X of the stormwater risk and recommendation that additional protective measures should be considered, referencing local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources.
Via class 'Protective Measure Recommendation Capability': Protective Measure Recommendation Capability exists in the ontology and is defined as the capability to identify and recommend specific protective measures commensurate with an identified risk to public health or safety, including the ability to specify what safeguards are technically appropriate and to communicate those recommendations clearly to a client even when the client is reluctant to invest in them. This is a direct match at high confidence.
Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability
Engineer L needed the capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public takes precedence over the duty of loyalty to Client X, and to act on that recognition by refusing to continue work without required safeguards.
Engineer L's obligation to prioritize community drinking water safety over Client X's economic interest in proceeding without recommended stormwater safeguards.
The BER's conclusion that Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work without protective measures, grounded in the same public safety paramount principle applied in BER Case 76-4.
Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
Via class 'Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability': The ontology contains Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability, defined as the capability to recognize that public safety obligations take precedence over client loyalty and to act accordingly. This is the central capability invoked throughout the case text, from BER Case 76-4 through the present Engineer L analysis.
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to recognize that the obligation to hold paramount the safety of the community relying on the nearby drinking water source took precedence over loyalty to Client X, and to act on that recognition by reporting to regulatory authorities when Client X refused to implement recommended safeguards.
Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures for the community drinking water source and insisted on proceeding without safeguards, requiring Engineer L to recognize that public safety obligations took precedence over client loyalty.
The obligation arising from Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and insistence on proceeding without safeguards, which required Engineer L to prioritize public safety over client loyalty.
This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety Paramount Judgment Capability'
Engineer L Qualitative Risk Disclosure Trigger
Engineer L's additional studies during the resumed design phase identified a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed. Although a complete quantitative risk assessment had not been completed, the qualitative finding rose to the level of fact and triggered disclosure obligations.
Once Engineer L's additional studies produced a qualitative finding that stormwater runoff posed a risk to the community drinking water source, that finding triggered mandatory disclosure obligations to Client X equivalent to those arising from a fully quantified risk assessment.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections II.3.a, II.3.b, III.3.a; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
Although it does not appear Engineer L has completed a professional report per se, Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact.'
Environmental Risk Quantification Capability
Engineer L possessed the capability to conduct additional studies and produce a qualitative estimate of the stormwater runoff risk to the nearby watershed and community drinking water source following the historic rainfall event.
After work resumed and a historic heavy rainfall increased on-site stormwater accumulation, Engineer L conducted additional studies and qualitatively estimated the risk of runoff reaching the community drinking water source.
Engineer L's conduct of additional studies and qualitative estimation of the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the watershed after work resumed.
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Environmental Risk Quantification Capability'
Engineer L Regulatory Escalation After Override
Engineer L had qualitatively confirmed a risk to the community drinking water source and notified Client X, who refused to act on the recommendation citing budget constraints. The client's override of the safety recommendation and insistence on proceeding without safeguards triggered Engineer L's obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities, constrained by the requirement that such escalation occur after the client has been given the opportunity to act.
After Client X overrode Engineer L's recommendation to implement additional protective measures, Engineer L was constrained to report the confirmed stormwater risk to the community drinking water source to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority, because the client's override created a condition endangering public welfare that could not be resolved within the professional relationship.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 (public paramount duty); local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources
Following Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures and insistence on proceeding without safeguards
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint'
Engineer L Regulatory Report After Client Override
Client X refused to implement protective measures identified by Engineer L to protect the community drinking water source from stormwater runoff. The BER found Engineer L could not continue work and, consistent with BER Case 76-4, the confirmed risk required reporting to the appropriate regulatory authority.
After Client X refused to implement protective measures and Engineer L ceased participation, Engineer L was required to report the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority, consistent with the paramount public safety duty and BER Case 76-4 precedent.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 76-4; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
After Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and Engineer L's withdrawal from the project
BER Case 76-4 stated that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority.
Several recent cases, including BER Case 22-5 and BER Case 20-4, emphasize an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water.
Via class 'Regulatory Escalation Constraint': The Regulatory Escalation Constraint in the ontology directly matches this concept: when a client overrides a safety recommendation and the engineer has confirmed a public risk, the engineer must report to the appropriate regulatory authority. BER Case 76-4 and the Engineer L facts are direct instantiations.
Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability
Engineer L was required to exercise the capability to recognize that Client X's refusal to implement recommended protective measures triggered an obligation to report the identified stormwater risk to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority.
After Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards, Engineer L was obligated to report the identified stormwater risk to the appropriate regulatory authority.
The situation in which Client X declined to implement safeguards and insisted on proceeding, creating the obligation for Engineer L to report to regulatory authorities despite client instructions to the contrary.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Reporting Trigger Recognition Capability'
Engineer L possessed many years of domain expertise in stormwater control design, enabling the identification of increased stormwater risk to the community drinking water source and the conduct of additional studies to qualitatively estimate that risk.
Engineer L was contracted specifically because of expertise in stormwater control design, which was applied to identify and characterize the risk of stormwater runoff reaching the community drinking water source.
Engineer L's identification of the preliminary stormwater risk concern during the design phase and the subsequent conduct of additional studies following the historic rainfall event.
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Domain Expertise'
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L identified a potential increased risk of stormwater impact on the community drinking water source. When Client X requested a work suspension due to financial setbacks, Engineer L did not mention this preliminary concern in the suspension communications, leaving Client X uninformed of a material safety issue during the suspension period.
Engineer L was constrained to disclose the preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk to the community drinking water source to Client X at the time of the work suspension, before pausing the engagement, even though the risk had not yet been quantified.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 (public paramount duty); professional ethics obligation to disclose material safety concerns before suspending work
At the time of the work suspension communications between Engineer L and Client X
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Constraint'
Engineer L Suspension Period Risk Silence
Engineer L suspended work at Client X's request while holding a preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk. The BER found mandatory disclosure was not required because the concern had not risen to fact, but noted voluntary disclosure would have been prudent.
Although the BER found that Engineer L's preliminary concern at the time of work suspension had not risen to the level of fact requiring mandatory disclosure, the constraint establishing that prudent disclosure of preliminary concerns at suspension is advisable applied to Engineer L's situation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4, II.3.b; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
At the time of work suspension during the initial design phase
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development.
The BER's view is that, while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code.
When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request.
Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability
Engineer L possessed but failed to exercise the capability to disclose the preliminary stormwater risk concern to Client X at the time of the work suspension, when the concern had been identified but not yet quantified.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L identified a concern about increased stormwater risk to the community drinking water source but did not disclose this concern to Client X when work was suspended due to Client X's financial setbacks.
Engineer L's failure to mention the potential increased risk to the community drinking water source during communications about the suspension of work.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Incomplete Analysis Disclosure Capability'
State regulatory body that advised XYZ Corporation of the need to apply for a discharge permit and held a public hearing at which XYZ planned to present data on discharge compliance. Engineer Doe had an obligation to report his findings to this authority.
Engineer Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water
the Pollution Control Authority would be holding a public hearing
Via class 'Pollution Control Authority': The State Pollution Control Authority in BER Case 76-4 matches the previously extracted Pollution Control Authority class exactly: a government regulatory body holding public hearings on environmental compliance to which engineers must report findings that conflict with client instructions.
preliminary design phase before work suspension
Manufacturing corporation advised by the State Pollution Control Authority to apply for a discharge permit. Hired Engineer Doe for consulting services, then instructed him not to complete a written report after receiving unfavorable verbal findings, and subsequently planned to present data at a public hearing suggesting discharge met minimum standards.
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste
XYZ Corporation would present data to show their discharge meets minimum standards
XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report and paid Engineer Doe the agreed upon fee
Several months after suspension, at the time of project resumption and concurrent historic rainfall event
After completion of additional studies, during the resumed project phase
After Client X refused to implement protective measures, during the resumed project phase
Discussion section analysis, prospective from the point of Client X's safeguard refusal
Discussion section analysis, retrospective to the suspension period
Concurrent with project resumption, months after suspension
After preliminary design phase began, before risk quantification was possible
During preliminary design, before project suspension
Preliminary design phase, at the time Client X requested suspension of work
After additional studies, concurrent with or shortly after the heavy rainfall event
After Engineer L's formal risk notification to Client X
Engineer L's concern about increased stormwater risk before work suspension requested by Client X
Engineer L's concern about increased stormwater risk
work suspension before additional studies and risk quantification
additional studies and risk quantification
Engineer L's non-disclosure of unquantified concern during work suspension period
Engineer L's non-disclosure of unquantified concern
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
Engineer L's concern about increased stormwater risk before quantification of the increased risk
work suspension before resumption of work
suspension communications between Engineer L and Client X during work suspension period
suspension communications between Engineer L and Client X
historic heavy rainfall event overlaps resumption of work on stormwater management system
resumption of work on stormwater management system
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2
additional studies by Engineer L after historic heavy rainfall event
Engineer L's formal notification to Client X of risk after additional studies identifying qualitative risk
Engineer L's formal notification to Client X of risk
additional studies identifying qualitative risk
Client X's refusal of additional safeguards after Engineer L's formal notification to Client X of risk
Client X's refusal of additional safeguards
Risk Concern Emergence → Risk Non-Disclosure Decision
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time. But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Risk Concern Emergence -- Engineer L develops unquantified concern about increasing stormwater risk during preliminary design
Project Suspension -- Client X requests suspension before Engineer L can quantify the risk
Risk Non-Disclosure Decision -- Engineer L does not mention the potential increased risk during suspension communications
Had Engineer L quantified the risk into a 'fact' before suspension, disclosure may have been required; but with only an unquantified concern, non-disclosure remained permissible
Communications about the suspension occurring
Engineer L's unquantified concern about increasing stormwater risk
Inability to quantify the risk before suspension
Concern not rising to the level of 'fact' + suspension communications occurring without obligation to disclose
Project Suspension → Risk Non-Disclosure Decision
Project Suspension -- Client X requests suspension of work due to financial setbacks
Risk Non-Disclosure Decision -- During suspension communications, Engineer L does not disclose the potential risk
Without the suspension request, there would have been no suspension communication context in which non-disclosure occurred
Client X's good-faith request to suspend work
Engineer L's obligation as faithful agent under Canon I.4
Good-faith suspension request + unquantified concern not rising to 'fact' = no disclosure required
Project Resumption → Additional Risk Studies
Several months later, Client X’s financial situation improves and Engineer L is asked to resume work on the stormwater management system... Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source.
Project Resumption -- Client X resumes the project as finances improve
Heavy Rainfall Event -- Historic rainfall raises on-site stormwater accumulation
Additional Risk Studies -- Engineer L conducts additional studies to qualitatively assess runoff risk
Without resumption, Engineer L would not have conducted the additional studies
Engineer L's professional diligence in assessing risk
Resumed work mandate + heavy rainfall event prompting investigation = additional studies conducted
Heavy Rainfall Event → Additional Risk Studies
an historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed. Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk
Heavy Rainfall Event -- Historic rainfall increases on-site stormwater accumulation
Additional Risk Studies -- Engineer L investigates the elevated runoff risk
Without the heavy rainfall raising visible risk, the urgency prompting additional studies would have been reduced
Engineer L's responsiveness to changing conditions
Historic heavy rainfall increasing stormwater accumulation
Heavy rainfall raising risk + resumed engagement = studies conducted to quantify risk
Additional Risk Studies → Risk Qualification Finding
Additional Risk Studies -- Engineer L performs studies on runoff potential
Risk Qualification Finding -- Engineer L arrives at a qualitative finding establishing concrete runoff risk as 'fact'
Without conducting additional studies, the risk would have remained an unquantified concern rather than a 'fact'
Existence of a real runoff risk to quantify
Studies + analysis of stormwater conditions = qualitative risk finding constituting 'fact'
Risk Qualification Finding → Client Risk Notification
Engineer L’s identification of runoff risk is now “fact.” Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Risk Qualification Finding -- Runoff risk established as 'fact'
Client Risk Notification -- Engineer L formally notifies Client X and advises protective measures
Had the risk remained an unquantified concern, notification would have been prudent but not required
Code obligation to advise client of unsuccessful project
Local environmental standards requiring protection of public water sources
Established 'fact' of runoff risk + Code duties under I.4 and III.1.b = obligation to notify client
Client Risk Notification → Safeguard Refusal
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations. Despite Engineer L’s concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Client Risk Notification -- Engineer L notifies Client X and advises protective measures
Safeguard Refusal -- Client X refuses to invest in additional protective measures, citing budget
Without notification, Client X would not have been positioned to formally refuse the recommended safeguards
Client X's continuing budget limitations
Client X's decision to prioritize cost over safeguards
Engineer L's notification of risk and advice on protective measures
Notification + cost concerns + client's choice to defer compliance = refusal of safeguards
Safeguard Refusal → Ethical Impermissibility Determination
consistent with BER case precedent and the facts of the instant case, Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X’s insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
Safeguard Refusal -- Client X refuses recommended protective measures
Ethical Permissibility Determination -- BER analysis confirms notification of risk was ethically proper
Ethical Impermissibility Determination -- BER analysis concludes Engineer L cannot ethically continue work absent protective measures
Had Client X agreed to protective measures, continuing work would have been ethically permissible
Client X's refusal to invest in protective measures
Code section III.1.b and II.1.a obligations
Engineer L's identification of a public health risk to drinking water
Established risk + client refusal + paramount duty to public health = ethical impermissibility of continued acquiescence
Safeguard Refusal → Continued Work Decision
Safeguard Refusal -- Client X refuses protective measures and insists on proceeding
Continued Work Decision -- Engineer L faces the dilemma of whether to continue work despite the refusal
Without the refusal and insistence to proceed, Engineer L would not face the continued work dilemma
Client X's refusal of safeguards and insistence on proceeding
Engineer L's position as contracted designer
Pressure of the client relationship under Canon I.4
Client refusal + insistence to proceed = pressure on Engineer L to continue work
From the client's refusal to hire the on-site representative through Engineer A's continued work on the project
Transforms the abstract duty to hold public safety paramount into a concrete obligation to cease or refuse work when client economic override removes necessary safety safeguards.
Client Cost Objection to Safety Measure State
Engineer A's continuation of project work after client declined to hire a full-time on-site project representative on cost grounds
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
The client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project.
Client indicated that hiring the on-site project representative recommended by Engineer A would be too costly, and Engineer A continued to work on the project
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Cost Objection to Safety Measure State'
Engineer L Environmental Stewardship Watershed
Engineer L's scope of work explicitly included ensuring that stormwater from the development would not impact the community's primary drinking water watershed, reflecting the domain-specific obligation to protect natural water resources from engineering-related harm.
The environmental stewardship obligation was embedded in the project scope and required Engineer L to design a system that protected the watershed, to identify risks to that protection, and to recommend measures sufficient to fulfill that obligation.
Environmental stewardship required Engineer L to prioritize watershed protection over client cost preferences, consistent with both the contractual scope and the broader professional obligation.
Via class 'Environmental Stewardship Principle': The existing Environmental Stewardship Principle is described as a domain-specific principle that bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities, which directly matches the obligation to protect the community drinking water watershed from stormwater runoff impacts.
Engineer A Bird Species Verbal Disclosure
From the biologist's report to Engineer A through submission of the written report to the public authority without the finding included
Transforms the general duty of honest communication into a specific obligation to disclose preliminary risk findings before or at the time of any work suspension, so that the client can make informed decisions during the interruption.
Engineer A's omission of threatened bird species concern from written report submitted to public authority
BER conclusion that it was unethical for Engineer A to omit the information from the written report
Engineer A verbally mentioned the threatened species concern to the developer client but did not include it in the written report submitted to the public authority
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Incomplete Written Disclosure State'
After quantitatively estimating the stormwater risk to the community drinking water watershed, Engineer L notified Client X and advised that additional protective measures should be considered, citing applicable local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources.
Protective Measure Recommendation Obligation
Engineer L was obligated to recommend specific protective measures to Client X commensurate with the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, with reference to applicable local environmental standards, and to document those recommendations.
Upon completion of additional studies and notification of Client X about the identified risk.
Via class 'Protective Measure Recommendation Obligation': The existing Protective Measure Recommendation Obligation is an exact match. The case directly instantiates this obligation: Engineer L identified a risk to the community drinking water source and recommended protective measures to Client X with reference to applicable local environmental standards. Matched with very high confidence.
From Engineer L's notification to Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk through the ongoing refusal by Client X to implement additional protective measures
Community relying on the watershed as a drinking water source
Engineer L's qualitative risk estimate and notification to Client X after additional studies following the historic rainfall event
Not yet terminated; Client X has refused to implement safeguards and the risk remains unmitigated
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Engineer L conducting additional studies after the historic heavy rainfall and notifying Client X of the risk of stormwater runoff reaching the watershed and community drinking water source
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Disclosure State'
Local environmental standards for public water source protection
Engineer L advised Client X that local environmental standards required steps to safeguard public water sources, and Client X's stated intention to address compliance issues later rather than implementing required protective measures constituted a prospective violation of those standards that Engineer L was obligated to address.
Client X's instruction to proceed and address compliance issues later, combined with the identified risk to a regulated public water source, placed Engineer L in the position of potentially facilitating a violation of applicable environmental standards.
The environmental law compliance obligation required Engineer L to refuse to proceed in a manner that would violate applicable standards and to report the situation to the relevant regulatory authority if Client X persisted.
Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
Via class 'Environmental Law Compliance Principle': The existing Environmental Law Compliance Principle directly addresses the obligation to recognize and act upon client conduct that constitutes a violation of environmental laws and regulations, which matches Engineer L's situation when Client X defers compliance with local environmental standards protecting public water sources.
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources. However, Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations. Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Engineer L Fact Threshold Preliminary Concern
Preliminary risk concern during suspension
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L had identified a concern about increased stormwater risk but had not yet quantified it. The case raises the question of whether this preliminary concern had reached the threshold of established fact sufficient to trigger a disclosure obligation at the time of the work suspension.
The principle requires judgment about whether Engineer L's preliminary concern, though not yet quantified, had reached a level of factual establishment sufficient to require disclosure. Given that the concern related to a community drinking water source, even a qualitative preliminary concern may have met the threshold.
Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle
The tension between the preliminary nature of the concern and the severity of the potential harm to a public water supply suggests the threshold was met or nearly met at the time of suspension, making the failure to disclose ethically problematic.
before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks
Via class 'Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle': The existing Fact-Based Disclosure Threshold Principle directly captures the distinction between preliminary concern and established technical fact as the trigger for disclosure obligation, which is precisely the tension in this case between Engineer L's preliminary concern during the suspension phase and the later qualitative estimate that triggered notification.
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time. But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Engineer L Regulatory Compliance Context
Throughout the engagement, as a persistent background constraint on all design and construction activities
Transforms the general duty to protect public safety into a specific obligation to evaluate escalation options, including regulatory reporting and withdrawal, when a client explicitly refuses to implement safety measures and defers compliance to an indefinite future.
The applicable local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources, which govern the stormwater management design and Client X's development activities
Not applicable; regulatory requirements persist as a background constraint
Local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Engineer L's identification that local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Regulatory Compliance State'
The project reached a state where continuation by Engineer L was classified as an ethical violation, placing Engineer L under a professional obligation to withdraw rather than proceed.
The Discussion section's analysis produced a formal determination that continuing work after Client X's refusal of adequate safeguards is ethically impermissible, given the confirmed public safety risk to the drinking water source.
Client X's instruction to proceed without safeguards
When Client X instructed Engineer L to proceed without implementing the additional protective measures Engineer L had identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source, the principle required Engineer L to refuse to continue work in that manner and to escalate to appropriate regulatory authorities.
The client override refusal obligation required Engineer L to decline to proceed in the manner Client X directed, placing public welfare above client instructions.
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards.
Via class 'Client Override Refusal Principle': The existing Client Override Refusal Principle directly addresses the scenario where a client instructs an engineer to proceed without implementing safety or environmental protective measures the engineer has identified as necessary, requiring refusal and escalation. This is an exact match to the situation where Client X insists on proceeding without safeguards.
During the preliminary design phase of a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a community drinking water watershed, Engineer L identified a potential increased risk of stormwater impact but failed to mention this concern to Client X during communications about a work suspension.
At the time of communications about the work suspension, before work was suspended.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time.
Via class 'Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation': The existing Preliminary Risk Disclosure Obligation is an exact match for the obligation at issue during the preliminary design phase. Engineer L identified a potential risk before it was quantified and failed to disclose it during suspension communications. This is precisely the scenario the existing class was designed to capture. Matched with very high confidence.
Engineer L Risk Quantification Resumption
After resuming work on the stormwater management system following a suspension, and following a historic heavy rainfall event that increased on-site stormwater accumulation, Engineer L conducted additional studies and produced a qualitative estimate of the risk of runoff reaching the watershed.
Environmental Risk Quantification Obligation
Engineer L was obligated to conduct sufficient analysis to quantify or adequately characterize the stormwater risk to the community drinking water source, and upon resumption of work did conduct additional studies resulting in a qualitative risk estimate.
Upon resumption of work and following the historic rainfall event.
Via class 'Environmental Risk Quantification Obligation': The existing Environmental Risk Quantification Obligation is an exact match. The case directly involves Engineer L's inability to quantify the risk before suspension and the subsequent qualitative estimation upon resumption. Matched with very high confidence.
From Client X's refusal to invest in protective measures through the ethical dilemma requiring Engineer L to decide whether to continue work
Client X's insistence on proceeding with the project without implementing the protective measures identified by Engineer L
Client X insisted on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards after Engineer L notified Client X of the confirmed runoff risk
From Client X's refusal to invest in additional protective measures through the present, with no indication of resolution
Client Override of Safety Recommendation State
Client X's explicit refusal to implement additional protective measures recommended by Engineer L, citing budget limitations and deferring compliance to a future contingency
Not yet terminated; Client X continues to insist on proceeding without added safeguards
Client X's response to Engineer L's risk notification, declining additional safeguards and stating compliance issues would be addressed later if needed
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override of Safety Recommendation State'
Engineer L Client Interest vs Public Duty
From Client X's refusal to implement additional safeguards onward, persisting as long as the risk remains unmitigated and Engineer L continues on the engagement
Client Interest versus Public Duty Conflict State
Engineer L's position between obligations to Client X as a faithful agent and the paramount duty to protect the community's drinking water source
Resolution through client compliance, regulatory reporting by Engineer L, or Engineer L's withdrawal from the engagement
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Interest versus Public Duty Conflict State'
Engineer L Public Welfare Drinking Water
Client X's refusal of protective measures
Client Economic Pressure Resistance Principle
Engineer L's paramount obligation was to protect the community's primary drinking water source from stormwater runoff impacts, an obligation that superseded Client X's budget concerns and instructions to proceed without additional safeguards.
Public welfare paramountcy required Engineer L to refuse to proceed in a manner that perpetuated the identified risk and to escalate to appropriate authorities, rather than deferring to Client X's instructions.
Via class 'Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle': The existing Public Welfare Paramountcy Principle is a direct match. It explicitly addresses the scenario where a client refuses to fund protective measures and the engineer must not continue work that perpetuates identified public risk, which is precisely the ethical tension in this case.
This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source. Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
From Client X's initial financial setbacks through the refusal to implement safeguards, persisting as a stated constraint
Client X's continuing budget limitations cited as justification for refusing to implement additional protective measures
Not yet terminated; Client X continues to cite budget constraints
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Resource Constrained'
After resuming work and conducting additional studies, Engineer L notified Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff to reach the watershed and community drinking water source, and advised that additional protective measures should be considered.
Engineer L fulfilled the disclosure obligation once additional studies produced a qualitative risk estimate, but the earlier failure to disclose during the suspension period represents a gap in meeting the principle's requirements.
Engineer L's notification upon resumption partially satisfied the disclosure obligation, but the principle also required earlier disclosure of the preliminary concern during the suspension phase.
Via class 'Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle': The existing Proactive Risk Disclosure Principle directly captures the obligation to disclose risks as soon as identified without waiting for materialization or a convenient moment, and explicitly states the obligation is not suspended by project interruptions, financial pressures, or client reluctance. This is an exact match to the core ethical issue in this case.
Engineer L's non-disclosure during suspension was reclassified from a potentially questionable omission to an ethically permissible professional judgment, closing retrospective liability for that period.
Non-Disclosure Permissibility Established
The Discussion section's analysis of BER precedent spanning 1967 to 2022 produced a formal determination that Engineer L's silence during suspension was ethically permissible because the concern was not yet a confirmed fact at that time.
Client X's budget-based refusal of protective measures
Client X's invocation of budget limitations as justification for declining to implement protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary for public safety constituted economic pressure that Engineer L was obligated to resist, maintaining the professional recommendation regardless of the client's financial objections.
The economic pressure resistance principle required Engineer L to maintain the recommendation for protective measures and not to withdraw or soften it in response to Client X's budget objections.
Via class 'Client Economic Pressure Resistance Principle': The existing Client Economic Pressure Resistance Principle directly addresses the scenario where a client refuses to fund protective measures citing budget limitations and the engineer must not continue work that perpetuates the identified risk. This is an exact match to Client X's budget-based refusal to implement stormwater protective measures.
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations. Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
From initial contract through the present, including the suspension period and resumption of work
Engineer L's contracted professional relationship with Client X for stormwater management system design
Not yet terminated; the engagement has resumed after suspension
Client X's financial situation improves and Engineer L is asked to resume work on the stormwater management system
Engineer L contracted by Client X to design a stormwater management system for the large residential and commercial development
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
Client X's development project interests
Engineer L's contractual relationship with Client X
Engineer L owed a genuine duty of loyalty to Client X as the contracting party, which required advancing Client X's development interests through competent design and honest advice. This duty was in tension with but ultimately subordinate to Engineer L's public welfare obligations when Client X refused to implement necessary protective measures.
The faithful agent duty was properly fulfilled through honest advice and risk disclosure, but was overridden by public welfare paramountcy when Client X refused to act on that advice.
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered
Via class 'Faithful Agent Duty Principle': The existing Faithful Agent Duty Principle directly addresses the engineer's duty of loyalty to clients as a genuine but subordinate obligation, which is the relational principle at stake when Engineer L must balance serving Client X's interests against public welfare obligations.
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a small community.
Client X declined to implement protective measures recommended by Engineer L and stated an intent to address compliance issues only if required later, placing Engineer L in a position where continuing work would conflict with the paramount duty to public welfare.
Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a compliant or successful project outcome, so that Client X had the opportunity to reconsider before Engineer L was placed in an irreconcilable ethical conflict.
After Client X declined to implement the recommended protective measures.
Via class 'Project Success Notification Obligation': The existing Project Success Notification Obligation is an exact match. Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that proceeding without the recommended protective measures would not constitute a successful or compliant project outcome, giving Client X the opportunity to reconsider before Engineer L faced an irreconcilable ethical conflict. Matched with very high confidence.
licensed professional engineer, stormwater design consultant
Continuation without safeguards places community drinking water source at increased risk of contamination from stormwater runoff
Engineer Acquiescence to Client Refusal State
Fulfill contractual obligations to Client X as a faithful agent while managing the tension with the paramount duty to public health
Protective Measures Recommendation Pending State
Advise Client of Project Unsuccessfulness Obligation
Paramount Duty to Public Health Safety and Welfare
Despite having notified Client X of the identified runoff risk and despite Client X refusing to invest in additional protective measures and stating that compliance issues would be addressed later if needed, Engineer L faced the decision of whether to continue work on the stormwater management system without the safeguards Engineer L identified as necessary.
Engineer L Client Interest versus Public Duty
From the point at which Client X refused to implement safeguards through the BER's resolution that public safety must prevail
Engineer L's conflict between faithful agent obligations to Client X and the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare regarding watershed contamination risk
BER conclusion that Engineer L must not continue work when Client X refuses adequate safeguards
The project transitioned from suspended to active status, reinstating Engineer L's professional duties and re-engaging the unresolved risk concern in an active work context.
Months after suspension, Client X resumed the stormwater management project, reactivating Engineer L's contractual obligations and design work.
From the historic rainfall event that raised on-site stormwater accumulation onward, persisting as long as adequate safeguards are absent
Community relying on the watershed as a primary drinking water source
The community's drinking water source being at elevated risk of contamination from stormwater runoff due to the development proceeding without adequate protective measures
Implementation of adequate protective measures or cessation of development activity
An historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed
Engineer L qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
Historic heavy rainfall leading to increased stormwater accumulation on-site and Engineer L's qualitative risk estimate confirming elevated risk of runoff into the watershed
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
On-site stormwater accumulation increased to historically elevated levels, transforming the previously unquantified risk concern into a concretely observable and qualitatively assessable hazard condition.
A historic heavy rainfall event occurred concurrently with project resumption, causing significant stormwater accumulation on the project site and materially increasing the observable risk of runoff reaching the watershed.
Community drinking water risk remains unacknowledged by client during suspension period
Technical Opinion Grounded in Fact Obligation
Unquantified Risk Concern Undisclosed State
Respect the client's good-faith suspension request without raising concerns that lacked sufficient technical foundation to constitute fact
During communications about the work suspension, Engineer L chose not to mention to Client X the developing concern about potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source, because the risk had not yet been quantified to the level of established fact.
Engineer L Confirmed Risk Without Safeguards
From Client X's refusal to implement safeguards following Engineer L's risk notification, persisting until safeguards are implemented or the matter is reported to authorities
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Engineer L's confirmed qualitative finding that stormwater runoff poses a risk to the community drinking water source, combined with Client X's refusal to implement adequate protective measures
Implementation of adequate safeguards, regulatory reporting, or Engineer L's withdrawal
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State'
From the point at which additional studies identified the potential runoff risk as a factual finding through Engineer L's notification of Client X
Engineer L's identification and notification of confirmed stormwater runoff risk to Client X during the resumed design phase
Engineer L notified Client X of the risk; Client X's refusal to implement safeguards then activated the subsequent conflict state
During this phase of the project, additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Additional studies during the resumed design phase identified a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed, elevating the concern to a factual finding
Licensed PE with stormwater expertise contracted to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a community drinking water watershed. Identified increased risk of stormwater runoff impact during preliminary design, did not disclose this risk to Client X at the time of work suspension, and later notified Client X of the risk after resuming work and conducting additional studies.
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design
Via class 'Stormwater Design Engineer': The previously extracted class Stormwater Design Engineer matches exactly: a licensed PE specializing in stormwater management design who bears professional accountability for assessing and communicating risks to public water sources and ensuring compliance with environmental standards.
Engineer L Client Budget Safety Continuation
Engineer L identified a qualitative risk that stormwater runoff from the development could reach the community drinking water source and recommended additional protective measures. Client X refused to implement those measures citing budget limitations and stated it would address compliance issues later if needed. Engineer L faced the constraint of whether to continue work on a project posing a confirmed risk to public health without adequate safeguards.
Engineer L was constrained from continuing work on the stormwater management project after Client X refused to implement the additional protective measures identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source, when that refusal was grounded in budget limitations.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section I.1 (public paramount duty); Section II.1.a (public safety obligation); BER Case 84-5 analysis
From the point at which Client X explicitly refused to implement additional protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards
Engineer L was concerned about increased stormwater risk over time but had not developed the work to a point where risks of potential stormwater runoff from the new development could be assessed. The BER found this concern did not rise to the level of fact triggering mandatory disclosure.
Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint
Engineer L's preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk had not been substantiated by sufficient technical analysis and therefore did not trigger mandatory disclosure obligations under the Code, though voluntary disclosure to Client X would have been prudent.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3.b; BER Case analysis of Engineer L
During the initial design phase before work suspension
Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Concern Versus Fact Disclosure Constraint'
Engineer L Client Budget Pressure Refusal
Client X cited continuing budget limitations as justification for declining to implement protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from reaching the community drinking water watershed, and insisted on proceeding without added safeguards.
Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation
Engineer L was obligated to refuse to continue work on the stormwater management project after Client X declined to implement the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to safeguard the community drinking water source, and to refrain from subordinating the paramount duty to public welfare to Client X's budget constraints.
After Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards.
Via class 'Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation': The existing Client Economic Pressure Refusal Obligation is an exact match. Client X cited budget limitations as justification for declining protective measures, and Engineer L faced the obligation to refuse to continue rather than subordinate public welfare to the client's economic interests. Matched with very high confidence.
Engineer L Client Override Regulatory Report
After notifying Client X of the stormwater risk and recommending protective measures, and after Client X refused to implement those measures citing budget constraints and stating an intent to address compliance issues only if required later, Engineer L faced the obligation to escalate to the appropriate regulatory authority.
Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation
Engineer L was obligated to report the identified stormwater risk to the community drinking water source to the appropriate regulatory or pollution control authority after Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards, placing the paramount duty to public welfare above the faithful agent duty to Client X.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Override Public Safety Reporting Obligation'
Findings may create conflict with client over cost of protective measures
Establish a technically grounded, qualitative assessment of runoff risk to fulfill the scope of work and inform the client of any concrete findings
Objective and Truthful Reporting Obligation
Upon resumption of work, Engineer L conducted additional studies to qualitatively assess the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source, prompted in part by a concurrent historic heavy rainfall event that increased on-site stormwater accumulation.
Engineer L Preliminary Risk Non-Disclosure
From the point Engineer L identified the preliminary risk concern during the preliminary design phase through the work suspension period, until work resumed and additional studies were conducted
Engineer L's awareness of potential increased stormwater impact on community drinking water source before work suspension
Engineer L conducting additional studies after work resumed and notifying Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk
Before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time
Engineer L's identification during preliminary design that the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows would increase over time, raising the risk of impact to the community drinking water source
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Unverified Risk Concern State'
Engineer L owed a duty of loyalty to Client X as the contracting party but that duty was bounded by the obligation not to act in ways that violated professional ethics or endangered the community's primary drinking water source.
Engineer L was obligated to serve Client X's legitimate development interests while refusing to omit material safety findings or continue work in a manner that violated the paramount duty to public welfare, recognizing that the faithful agent duty does not extend to proceeding without adequate safeguards for the community drinking water source.
Throughout the engagement, and particularly after Client X refused to implement recommended protective measures.
Via class 'Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation': The existing Faithful Agent Boundary Obligation is an exact match. Engineer L owed loyalty to Client X but that loyalty was bounded by the obligation not to omit material safety findings or act in ways that violated professional ethics. Matched with very high confidence.
During the initial design phase, before Engineer L had developed analysis sufficient to assess stormwater runoff risks, through the client-requested work suspension
Engineer L's unquantified concern about stormwater runoff risk during the initial design phase before work suspension
Work suspension requested by Client X; concern remained unresolved until the resumed phase produced factual findings
Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact'
Engineer L identified a concern about increased risk over time from stormwater runoff but had not developed the work to the point of a technical finding
Client may resist additional investment, creating further ethical conflict
Ensure Client X is fully informed of the concrete runoff risk and the need for protective measures, fulfilling both the duty to the client and the paramount duty to public health
After completing additional studies, Engineer L formally notified Client X of the qualitatively identified risk that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff to reach the watershed and community drinking water source, and advised that additional protective measures should be considered, citing local environmental standards requiring safeguards for public water sources.
Engineer L Undisclosed Risk at Suspension
From the work suspension communications through the period of suspension, until work resumed and Engineer L eventually disclosed the risk
Engineer L's failure to disclose the preliminary risk concern to Client X at the time of work suspension
Engineer L notifying Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk after resuming work and conducting additional studies
In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source
Work suspension communications in which Engineer L did not mention the potential increased risk to the community drinking water source
Via class 'Undisclosed Preliminary Risk State': The existing Unverified Risk Concern State captures the intermediate epistemic condition where a professional has a concern but not yet a confirmed finding. However, the distinctive feature here is that the concern was not disclosed at the time of work suspension, creating a transparency deficit that persists through the interruption. The existing class does not specifically capture the non-disclosure dimension during a work suspension. A medium-confidence match is appropriate, but the non-disclosure aspect during suspension is a meaningful additional element.
A preliminary, unquantified risk concern entered Engineer L's professional awareness, creating an epistemic state of uncertainty about public safety without yet constituting a confirmed hazard finding.
During preliminary design, Engineer L developed unquantified concerns about increasing stormwater risk to the nearby drinking water source over time, without yet being able to assign concrete probability or magnitude.
The project entered a state where a confirmed public safety risk existed but the client had explicitly declined to implement safeguards, creating a direct conflict between the project's active trajectory and the safety of the community's drinking water source.
Client X formally refused to invest in additional protective measures after being notified of the confirmed risk, citing budget constraints and stating that compliance issues would be addressed later if needed.
Active design work stopped; Engineer L and Client X entered a suspended-contract relationship with no ongoing deliverables.
Reduced Communication Obligation Context
Client X suspended the stormwater management design project due to financial setbacks, halting Engineer L's work mid-preliminary-design.
The risk to the drinking water source changed status from an unquantified concern to a qualitatively confirmed professional finding, creating a documented hazard determination in Engineer L's professional record.
Following additional studies, Engineer L arrived at a qualitative finding that a concrete risk of stormwater runoff reaching the watershed existed, elevating the concern from unquantified speculation to an identified professional determination.