Absence of Local Building Code — Unregulated Jurisdiction Context
Local building code (absent) — no building code in place for the geographic area
The geographic area in which Client A is planning to build the project currently has no building code in place
Engineer A and Client A in determining design requirements
The absence of a local building code is a legally and ethically significant contextual fact: it means there is no regulatory floor requiring any storm surge design elevation, placing the entire burden of public safety protection on Engineer A's professional judgment and ethical obligations.
Accept Coastal Risk Engagement (Action 1) → 100-Year Surge Standard Identified (Event 3)
Apply Newly Released Algorithm and Data (Action 2) → 100-Year Surge Standard Identified (Event 3)
BER Case 04-8 decision before BER Case 07-6 decision
BER Case 07-6 decision before present case analysis
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 04-8 – Wetland Fill Without Permits
In BER Case No. 04-8, Engineer A, an environmental engineer, performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site... the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law
BER in analogical reasoning to determine Engineer A's obligations in the present case
Cited as precedent establishing the course of action for engineers who discover clients have violated environmental laws, including the obligation to contact the client, advise remediation, and escalate to authorities if the client fails to act
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case No. 07-6 – Threatened Bird Species in Development Report
In BER Case 07-6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm... The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority
BER in analogical reasoning to reinforce Engineer A's duty of objectivity and completeness in professional reporting
Cited as precedent establishing the obligation of engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities, even when such information may be adverse to the client's interests
Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle Invoked By Engineer A
Geographic area with no applicable building code
Local Government Officials Building Code Authority
Confidentiality of client project information
Employer Concurrence Requirement for Post-Obligation Advocacy
Engineer A should consider advocating to local government officials for adoption of building codes that address 100-year storm surge elevation requirements, given that the geographic area currently has no applicable building code and Client A has refused to build to the recommended standard
In this context, the absence of any building code in the geographic area creates a systemic public safety risk that extends beyond the individual Client A project; Engineer A's professional obligation to protect public welfare includes advocating to local government authorities for adoption of protective building codes that would address the identified storm surge risk for all coastal development in the area
Engineer A Present Case Coastal Risk Assessment
The systemic nature of the regulatory gap — affecting not only Client A's project but all coastal development in the area — creates an advocacy obligation that extends beyond the individual client relationship; Engineer A may communicate the general public safety basis for storm surge building codes to local government without disclosing Client A's specific project details
Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise
Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle Invoked by Engineer A
Local government officials with authority over regional building code adoption
Region-wide building codes for coastal storm surge risk
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A was advised to contact local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions in the geographical area of the coastal residential development project, as a component of the professional obligation to protect public welfare beyond the immediate client engagement
Engineers who identify that existing building codes are inadequate to address current climate-related risks bear a professional obligation to advocate for code updates with appropriate governmental authorities, extending the public welfare obligation beyond the immediate project
Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.
The region-wide nature of the coastal storm surge risk justifies advocacy with local government officials for updated building codes as a component of the engineer's public welfare obligation
CausalLink_Accept Coastal Risk Engagement
CausalLink_Apply Newly Released Algorithm
CausalLink_Contact Government Officials f
CausalLink_Continue Advocating Higher Saf
CausalLink_Determine 100-Year Surge Stand
Client A Cost-Based Refusal of 100-Year Storm Surge Standard
From Client A's refusal of the 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation through either client agreement, engineer withdrawal, or project completion
While the desire of the developer to reduce costs is understandable and a legitimate consideration, when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property, the latter consideration should prevail.
Client-Rejected Engineer Safety Elevation Recommendation State
Engineer A's relationship with Client A regarding the residential development project safety standard
Either Client A's agreement to adopt the standard, Engineer A's withdrawal from the project, or adoption of updated regional building codes
Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed
If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Client A's explicit refusal to adopt Engineer A's 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds
{'project_type': 'Residential development', 'cost_objection': 'Refuses 100-year storm surge elevation standard due to increased cost'}
Developer client who retained Engineer A for coastal risk assessment and design standard recommendations for a residential development project, and who refuses to adopt the engineer's recommended 100-year storm surge elevation design standard on grounds of increased construction costs.
{'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case Coastal Risk Assessment'}
the desire of the developer to reduce costs is understandable and a legitimate consideration
when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property, the latter consideration should prevail
{'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project_type': 'Residential coastal development', 'regulatory_context': 'No applicable building code in the geographic area', 'decision': 'Refused 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds'}
Private developer who retained Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a residential development project in a coastal area with no applicable building code; refused to agree to the engineer's recommended 100-year projected storm surge elevation design standard due to increased cost.
{'type': 'authority_over', 'target': 'Project cost and design standard decisions'}
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer'}
Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation
a residential development project near a coastal area
Client A's refusal before Engineer A's recommended withdrawal from project
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Invoked By Engineer A
Design standard for coastal residential development
Client A's instruction to proceed with a design standard below the 100-year storm surge elevation does not authorize Engineer A to certify or proceed with that standard, because doing so would violate Engineer A's professional obligation to protect public safety
In this context, Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the recommended standard is a client directive that, if followed, would require Engineer A to violate the professional obligation to hold paramount the safety of the public; Engineer A retains an independent obligation to refuse compliance
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation
Client payment does not purchase the engineer's ethical independence on safety determinations; Engineer A must refuse to certify a design standard below the professionally recommended level
Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks
Client Direction Does Not Authorize Ethical Violation Invoked by Engineer A Coastal Case
Client A's cost-motivated direction to reduce storm surge design standard
Client A's instruction to Engineer A to adopt a less stringent storm surge elevation standard did not constitute ethical authorization for Engineer A to do so, because compliance would have violated Engineer A's professional obligation to protect public safety
Client instructions to adopt design standards the engineer has determined to be inadequate do not create ethical permission to comply; the engineer retains an independent obligation to refuse
Professional obligation to protect public safety overrides client direction to adopt inadequate safety standards
Client Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A Bounded by Public Safety
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
Engineer A owes Client A a duty of faithful service in performing the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment engagement, including respecting Client A's financial constraints and business decisions, but this loyalty obligation is bounded by Engineer A's paramount obligation to protect the safety of future residents
In this context, client loyalty requires Engineer A to present the 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation in a manner that is sensitive to Client A's cost concerns and to explore whether alternative design approaches might reduce costs while maintaining adequate safety, but does not permit Engineer A to abandon the safety recommendation in response to Client A's refusal
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area
Client loyalty is bounded by the paramount public welfare obligation; Engineer A may be a faithful agent to Client A in all respects that do not require compromising the public safety standard
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Client Refusal of 100-Year Storm Surge Elevation Recommendation
From Client A's refusal through resolution — withdrawal, disclosure, or client acceptance
Because of the increased cost, Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation.
Client A's explicit refusal to adopt Engineer A's 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation on cost grounds
Engineer A withdraws, client accepts recommendation, or engineer formally discloses risk to appropriate authorities
Client A's explicit refusal to agree to the 100-year storm surge elevation standard due to increased cost
Client Refuses Higher Standard (Event 4) → Public Safety Risk Persists (Event 5)
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic and Coastal Design Standard
NOAA, FEMA, ASCE, and emerging professional consensus
Emerging professional norms and technical guidance for climate-adjusted coastal storm surge and sea level rise design
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise
100-year projected storm surge elevation
Engineer A in formulating the 100-year storm surge design recommendation
Provides the technical and professional framework for incorporating climate change projections, sea level rise, and storm surge recurrence intervals into the design of coastal residential development, supporting Engineer A's recommendation for a 100-year design elevation.
Climate-Informed 100-Year Storm Surge Elevation Recommendation
From Engineer A's formation of the 100-year projection recommendation through the current unresolved client refusal
Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
Engineer A's professional judgment regarding storm surge elevation standard for the coastal residential development
Client acceptance of recommendation, engineer withdrawal, or formal disclosure to authorities
Newly released information and recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data led Engineer A to conclude the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked By Engineer A
Coastal residential development project design standard
Hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment engagement
Engineer A applied newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine that the 100-year projected storm surge elevation is the appropriate design standard for the coastal residential development project
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to apply current climate science — including newly released data and recently developed modeling algorithms — to the design standard recommendation, rather than relying on prior historical baselines that may underestimate future storm surge risk
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Current climate science governs the design standard recommendation regardless of client cost preferences or absence of regulatory mandate; the engineer's professional judgment based on current science is the operative standard
due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by Engineer A
Storm surge elevation design standard for coastal residential development
Cost-Refusing Developer Client preferences
Engineer A applied newly released data and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine that the 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard was necessary, even though applicable regulatory standards may not have required it
Engineers must incorporate current scientific understanding — including newly released data and updated algorithms — into their professional assessments of climate-sensitive coastal infrastructure, even when regulatory standards have not yet been updated
The facts suggest that Engineer A's determination is based upon technical information—including newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data.
The obligation to use current scientific data in climate-sensitive design prevails over client cost preferences
Engineer A has determined, based on historical weather patterns and data, that the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked by Engineer A
Storm surge elevation standard determination for coastal residential development
Engineer A treated storm surge risk as a dynamic condition informed by newly released data and a recently developed algorithm, rather than relying solely on historical static baselines, when determining the appropriate design standard for the coastal residential development
Historical weather patterns alone are insufficient; engineers must incorporate newly released data and updated algorithms that reflect evolving climate conditions when assessing coastal storm surge risk
Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
Dynamic climate-informed assessment prevails over reliance on static historical baselines that may understate current risk
Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design Invoked By Engineer A
100-year storm surge elevation design standard recommendation
Hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Engineer A treated newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm as dynamic inputs to the design standard recommendation, rather than relying on static historical baselines, resulting in a recommendation to build to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to apply the most current available climate science — including newly released data and recently developed algorithms — to the coastal risk assessment, recognizing that the trajectory of climate change rather than historical averages governs the appropriate design standard
Current climate science trajectory governs the design standard; historical baselines that understate future risk are insufficient for forward-looking coastal development design
Coastal Hazard Storm Surge Algorithm and Historic Weather Data
Not specified – described as newly released technical information
Newly Developed Algorithm Incorporating Newly Identified Historic Weather Data for Storm Surge Elevation Analysis
Coastal Hazard and Storm Surge Design Standard
Engineer A's determination is based upon technical information—including newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data.
Engineer A in establishing the appropriate storm surge design elevation for the residential development project
Referenced as the technical basis for Engineer A's determination that the residential development should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, grounding the professional judgment that a less stringent standard would endanger residents and the public
Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
The Board recommends that Engineer A must first exhaust persuasion efforts with Client A before taking further action, emphasizing the duty to inform the client of dangers to future residents, the general public, and the environment — consistent with the public welfare paramount principle and the faithful agent notification obligation.
Beyond the Board's recommendation that Engineer A continue to pursue discussions with Client A, Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to document in writing the 100-year storm surge recommendation, the technical basis for that recommendation including the newly released algorithm and historic weather data, and Client A's explicit refusal on cost grounds. This written record serves two distinct functions: first, it fulfills Engineer A's faithful agent duty by formally notifying Client A that the project as currently scoped carries foreseeable risk to future residents and the general public; and second, it creates a contemporaneous professional record that may be essential if Engineer A is later called upon to demonstrate that the safety-critical recommendation was made and rejected. The absence of a local building code in the jurisdiction makes this documentation obligation more urgent, not less, because there is no regulatory paper trail that would otherwise capture the identified deficiency. Engineer A should provide this written notification to Client A before withdrawing from the project, and should retain copies as part of the professional record.
The Board's recommendation that Engineer A pursue persistent discussions with Client A before withdrawing does not require Engineer A to engage in indefinite or open-ended negotiation. The proportional escalation obligation is bounded by the point at which continued engagement becomes functional acquiescence to a design standard that Engineer A has already determined endangers life and property. Once Client A has explicitly and unambiguously refused the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, and once Engineer A has made a good-faith written effort to explain the public safety consequences of that refusal, the escalation obligation is satisfied. Continued discussion beyond that point risks creating the appearance that the safety standard is negotiable, which would itself undermine Engineer A's professional integrity and the clarity of the public safety message. The Board's two-step framework — persuade, then withdraw — should therefore be understood as a sequential and time-bounded process, not a license for indefinite deferral of withdrawal.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should withdraw if Client A refuses to accept the 100-year storm surge standard does not exhaust Engineer A's ethical obligations. Withdrawal removes Engineer A from complicity in an unsafe design but does not eliminate the foreseeable risk to future residents and the general public, who remain exposed to storm surge danger regardless of which engineer ultimately executes the project. In a jurisdiction with no building code, there is no regulatory mechanism that will independently capture or correct the identified deficiency after Engineer A's departure. Accordingly, Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations extend to notifying appropriate local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it. This obligation is grounded in the public welfare paramount principle and is reinforced by the building code advocacy engineer principle, which encourages engineers to engage with public authorities to establish protective standards. Engineer A's duty to the public does not terminate at the boundary of the client relationship, and the residual risk to future residents constitutes a continuing professional responsibility that survives withdrawal from the project.
The absence of a local building code in the project jurisdiction does not merely create a regulatory gap — it affirmatively expands Engineer A's independent professional duty to self-impose a technically defensible safety standard. Where a building code exists, an engineer's minimum obligation is compliance with that code, even if the engineer believes a higher standard is warranted. Where no code exists, the engineer's professional judgment is the only operative safety standard, and that judgment must be exercised with full application of available technical knowledge, including newly released algorithms and historic weather data. Client A's cost objection cannot function as a substitute for the absent regulatory floor. The Board's framework implicitly recognizes this dynamic by treating Engineer A's 100-year storm surge recommendation not as a discretionary preference but as a professional obligation grounded in public safety. This obligation persists regardless of cost constraints and is not diminished by the fact that a lower standard might have been acceptable in a jurisdiction with a more permissive building code.
From a consequentialist perspective, the Board's recommendation that Engineer A withdraw if Client A refuses the 100-year storm surge standard requires supplementary analysis to avoid a potentially counterproductive outcome. If Engineer A withdraws and a replacement engineer with fewer safety commitments accepts the engagement and designs to a lower storm surge elevation, the net effect on future residents may be worse than if Engineer A had remained engaged and continued to advocate for the higher standard from within the project. This replacement engineer risk does not, however, override the deontological obligation to withdraw — Engineer A cannot ethically lend professional credentials to a design that Engineer A has determined endangers life and property. But it does reinforce the importance of the post-withdrawal obligations identified above: Engineer A's notification to public authorities and advocacy for a protective building code are not merely optional extensions of professional responsibility but are the consequentialist mechanism by which withdrawal produces better rather than worse outcomes for the public. Withdrawal without post-withdrawal public disclosure may protect Engineer A's professional integrity while leaving the underlying public safety risk entirely unaddressed.
The Board's conclusions do not address the epistemic dimension of Engineer A's recommendation, specifically the tension between the professional obligation to render a definitive and defensible safety standard and the inherent uncertainty in climate projections derived from newly released algorithms and recently identified historic weather data. Engineer A's reliance on newly released tools is itself an expression of the professional competence obligation — engineers must apply the best available technical knowledge, not merely established consensus methods. However, professional integrity also requires that Engineer A qualify the recommendation appropriately: the 100-year storm surge standard should be presented as the technically defensible minimum given current best-available data, with explicit acknowledgment that evolving climate baselines may require future reassessment. This qualification does not weaken the recommendation or provide Client A with grounds to reject it on grounds of uncertainty; rather, it demonstrates the epistemic honesty that distinguishes a professionally credible safety recommendation from an overconfident assertion. The qualification also reinforces the case for building to the higher standard, since uncertainty in climate projections generally argues for greater rather than lesser conservatism in safety-critical infrastructure design.
The Board concludes that if Client A continues to refuse Engineer A's recommended 100-year storm surge elevation design standard, Engineer A's ethical obligation requires withdrawal from the project, as proceeding would constitute acquiescence to a client directive that endangers public safety — a violation of the paramount duty to protect public welfare.
In response to Q101: Engineer A bears an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials or other relevant public authorities about the identified storm surge risk even after withdrawing from the project. The absence of a building code in the jurisdiction does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents; it amplifies it. Code provision II.1.a makes clear that when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, the engineer shall notify the proper authority. Withdrawal alone satisfies the negative duty not to participate in an unsafe design, but it does not discharge the positive duty to protect public welfare. Because no regulatory floor exists in this jurisdiction, Engineer A's notification to local government officials is the only remaining mechanism by which the identified risk can be surfaced to a body capable of acting on it. Silence after withdrawal, in a no-code jurisdiction where the developer may simply retain a less scrupulous engineer, leaves the public safety risk entirely unaddressed and is ethically insufficient.
In response to Q102: Engineer A is obligated to document in writing the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's explicit refusal. This obligation flows from multiple converging sources. First, code provision II.1.a requires that when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances endangering life or property, the engineer shall notify the proper authority — a notification that is only credible and actionable if supported by a written record. Second, code provision III.1.b requires Engineer A to advise the client when a project will not be successful, and written documentation of that advice protects the integrity of that communication. Third, the Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification principle establishes that oral advocacy alone is insufficient when safety-critical recommendations are rejected. The documentation must be retained by Engineer A as a professional record, provided to Client A as formal notice of the safety concern and its rejection, and made available to any public authority to whom Engineer A subsequently discloses the risk. It should not be treated merely as a liability shield for Engineer A's professional standing; its primary ethical function is to create a durable, verifiable record of the safety risk that can inform regulatory or legal action.
In response to Q103: The absence of a local building code materially expands Engineer A's independent professional duty to self-impose a safety standard. Where a regulatory floor exists, an engineer can at minimum point to codified requirements as a baseline, even if personally recommending a higher standard. In a no-code jurisdiction, the engineer's professional judgment is the only operative safety standard in the design process. This places the full weight of public safety determination on Engineer A's expertise, making the self-imposed standard not merely aspirational but ethically mandatory. Client A's cost objections do not diminish this duty; the Public Welfare Paramount principle and the constraint that public safety is not subordinate to client cost preference together establish that economic considerations cannot override a safety-critical technical determination. Furthermore, this duty persists regardless of cost objections because the harm at stake — storm surge danger to future residents and the general public — is foreseeable, serious, and irreversible in the event of a major storm event. The no-code context therefore heightens rather than relaxes Engineer A's obligation to hold the 100-year storm surge standard as a non-negotiable professional floor.
In response to Q104: Engineer A does bear residual ethical responsibility for harm to future residents if Engineer A withdraws from the project but takes no further action to alert public authorities or advocate for protective building codes. Withdrawal is a necessary but not sufficient ethical response once Client A refuses the safety-critical recommendation. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should withdraw if Client A refuses is correct as far as it goes, but it does not exhaust Engineer A's obligations. Code provision II.1.a explicitly contemplates post-overruling notification to proper authorities, and the Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle and Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation together establish that Engineer A's professional duty extends beyond the client relationship into the broader public sphere. In a no-code jurisdiction, where no regulatory body will independently discover the risk, Engineer A's silence after withdrawal is functionally equivalent to acquiescence in the unsafe outcome. The residual responsibility is not unlimited — Engineer A cannot compel the developer or the jurisdiction to act — but it does require Engineer A to take affirmative steps to surface the risk to those with authority to address it.
In response to Q201: The Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle do not fundamentally conflict in this case — they operate in sequence rather than in opposition, but Public Welfare Paramount takes lexical priority when they diverge. Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent requires notifying Client A of the storm surge risk and the likelihood that a lower design standard will expose the project and its future residents to foreseeable danger. This notification duty is fully compatible with public welfare protection so long as Client A accepts the recommendation. The conflict arises only when Client A refuses: at that point, continuing to serve the client's cost preference would require Engineer A to subordinate public safety to client interest, which the NSPE Code does not permit. Code provision II.1. establishes that public safety is paramount, and the Client Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A is explicitly bounded by public safety. The faithful agent role therefore terminates at the boundary of ethical permissibility — Engineer A cannot be a faithful agent to a client directive that endangers the public.
In response to Q202: The Climate Change as Moving Target principle and the Professional Competence in Risk Assessment principle are in genuine tension, but that tension does not license indefinite hedging. Engineer A is correct to acknowledge that climate projections carry inherent uncertainty and that the baseline for storm surge risk may shift over time. However, professional competence requires that Engineer A render a definitive and defensible recommendation based on the best available data at the time of the assessment — in this case, the newly released algorithm and historic weather data. Epistemic humility does not mean refusing to commit to a standard; it means selecting the most protective standard that the current evidence supports and disclosing the uncertainty range transparently. The 100-year storm surge elevation standard represents Engineer A's best professional judgment given available tools, and that judgment must be stated clearly enough to be actionable. Qualifying the recommendation to the point of ambiguity would undermine its protective function and would itself constitute a failure of professional competence. Engineer A should state the recommendation definitively while noting that the standard may need to be revisited as climate data evolves.
In response to Q203: The Proportional Escalation Obligation and the Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis principle are in tension, but the resolution depends on the nature and clarity of Client A's refusal. Proportional escalation — attempting to persuade, documenting the disagreement, and escalating through available channels before withdrawing — is the appropriate framework when a client's position is ambiguous, negotiable, or based on incomplete information. However, when Client A has made an explicit, cost-driven refusal of a safety-critical standard, continued engagement that delays withdrawal risks becoming a form of tacit acquiescence. The Board's recommendation that Engineer A continue to pursue discussions is appropriate only if those discussions are genuinely aimed at changing Client A's position, not at finding a compromise that falls below the safety threshold. If Client A's refusal is unequivocal and no further persuasion is plausible, the Non-Acquiescence principle demands that Engineer A not continue to participate in a design process that will produce an unsafe outcome. The escalation obligation does not require Engineer A to exhaust every conceivable avenue before withdrawing; it requires that withdrawal be preceded by a good-faith effort to resolve the disagreement through professional persuasion.
In response to Q204: The Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle and the Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure principle are not fundamentally in conflict regarding timing, but they operate on different tracks. Proactive risk disclosure to public authorities is triggered by the identification of a foreseeable public safety risk that cannot be adequately addressed through the client relationship — a trigger that may be reached before withdrawal if Client A's refusal is clear and the risk is serious. Building code advocacy, by contrast, is a longer-horizon obligation that involves engaging local government to establish systemic protective standards and is appropriately pursued both during and after the client engagement. The disclosure duty is narrower and more urgent: it requires Engineer A to surface the specific identified risk to authorities capable of acting on it. The advocacy duty is broader and more structural: it requires Engineer A to work toward closing the regulatory gap that allowed the risk to go unaddressed in the first place. These duties are complementary rather than conflicting, and both are activated by the combination of a no-code jurisdiction, a foreseeable public safety risk, and a client's refusal to adopt the recommended protective standard.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount does create a near-absolute obligation to withdraw once Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard, but the deontological analysis does not end there. Withdrawal is obligatory because continuing to participate in the design of a structure that Engineer A knows to be unsafe would make Engineer A complicit in a foreseeable harm to future residents — a violation of the categorical duty not to use persons merely as means. However, the deontological framework also imposes a positive duty of beneficence toward those future residents, which withdrawal alone does not satisfy. The duty to withdraw is therefore necessary but not sufficient: it must be accompanied by the affirmative duty to notify proper authorities, as specified in code provision II.1.a. The fact that withdrawal may not actually prevent harm — because another engineer may replace Engineer A — does not diminish the deontological obligation to withdraw; acting from duty is not contingent on producing the desired outcome. But it does reinforce the importance of the notification duty as the mechanism through which Engineer A's moral agency extends beyond the client relationship.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the question of whether withdrawal produces better outcomes than remaining engaged is genuinely difficult, but the analysis ultimately supports withdrawal as the ethically superior choice under the specific conditions of this case. The argument for remaining engaged — that Engineer A might influence the design from within — is plausible only if Client A's refusal is soft and subject to ongoing persuasion. If Client A's refusal is firm, remaining engaged produces no safety benefit and instead lends Engineer A's professional credibility to an unsafe design. The replacement engineer scenario — where a less scrupulous engineer simply adopts the lower standard — is a real consequentialist concern, but it does not justify Engineer A's continued participation in an unsafe project. The better consequentialist response to the replacement risk is not to remain on the project but to pursue the post-withdrawal notification and advocacy obligations that can alert public authorities to the risk regardless of who ultimately designs the structure. Withdrawal combined with proactive disclosure to local government officials produces better expected outcomes than continued engagement without client agreement on the safety standard.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, Engineer A demonstrates genuine professional integrity by applying the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to recommend the 100-year storm surge standard, but epistemic humility requires that the recommendation be accompanied by a transparent disclosure of the uncertainty inherent in climate projections — not as a qualification that weakens the recommendation, but as a demonstration of intellectual honesty that strengthens it. A virtuous engineer does not suppress uncertainty to make a recommendation appear more authoritative than the evidence warrants; nor does the virtuous engineer use uncertainty as a reason to avoid making a definitive professional judgment. The virtue of practical wisdom — phronesis — requires Engineer A to calibrate the recommendation to the best available evidence, state it clearly and confidently, and acknowledge the evolving nature of the climate baseline in a way that informs rather than undermines the client's decision-making. Recommending the 100-year standard on the basis of the best current tools, while noting that the standard may need to be revisited as data improves, reflects the kind of honest, competent, and courageous professional conduct that virtue ethics demands.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to Client A and the duty to hold public safety paramount do conflict when Client A's cost-driven refusal creates foreseeable risk to future residents, and public safety takes unambiguous lexical priority. The faithful agent duty — including the obligation under code provision III.1.b to notify the client when a project will not be successful — is a genuine professional obligation, but it is explicitly bounded by the public safety paramount principle established in code provision II.1. The NSPE Code does not treat these duties as equally weighted and subject to balancing; it establishes a clear hierarchy in which public safety is paramount. This means that when the two duties conflict, Engineer A cannot satisfy the faithful agent obligation by continuing to serve Client A's cost preference at the expense of public safety. The faithful agent duty is fully discharged when Engineer A provides Client A with a clear, written notification of the safety risk and the consequences of refusing the recommended standard — after which the public safety duty takes over and requires Engineer A to withdraw and notify appropriate authorities.
In response to Q401: If the jurisdiction had an existing building code mandating a lower storm surge elevation standard, Engineer A would still be ethically obligated to recommend the 100-year projection if professional judgment — supported by the best available data — indicated that the code-mandated standard was technically insufficient to protect public safety. Code provision II.1.b requires engineers to approve only those engineering documents in conformity with applicable standards, but it does not limit Engineer A's professional duty to recommend a higher standard when the applicable code is inadequate. Legal compliance provides a legal safe harbor but not an ethical one: an engineer who knows that a code-compliant design will expose future residents to foreseeable danger cannot discharge the public safety obligation merely by pointing to the code. However, the ethical calculus for withdrawal would change in a coded jurisdiction: Engineer A could not refuse to certify a code-compliant design on safety grounds alone without a stronger evidentiary basis that the code itself was deficient, and the appropriate response might shift toward formal advocacy for code revision rather than project withdrawal. The no-code jurisdiction in the present case removes this complication and places the full weight of the safety determination on Engineer A's professional judgment.
In response to Q402: Proactive contact with local government officials before presenting findings to Client A would likely have produced better outcomes for future residents than treating advocacy as a post-withdrawal obligation. If Engineer A had engaged local government at the outset — alerting officials to the identified storm surge risk and the absence of a protective building code — the jurisdiction might have initiated a code development process that would have established a regulatory floor independent of Client A's cost preferences. This would have changed the negotiating dynamic: Client A would have faced not only Engineer A's professional recommendation but also the prospect of an emerging regulatory requirement. However, this sequencing raises its own ethical complexity: Engineer A's primary engagement is with Client A, and disclosing project-specific findings to public authorities before informing the client could be seen as a breach of the faithful agent obligation. The more defensible approach is for Engineer A to raise the regulatory gap issue with local government in general terms — advocating for a building code that addresses storm surge risk in the jurisdiction — without disclosing Client A's project-specific information before the client relationship has broken down. Post-withdrawal, the disclosure obligation becomes more direct and project-specific.
In response to Q403: Written documentation of the safety recommendation and Client A's refusal, provided at the outset of the disagreement rather than only during ongoing discussions, would likely have served a dual function: it would have created a formal record that could influence Client A's decision-making by making the professional stakes of the refusal explicit, and it would have protected Engineer A's professional standing. However, the evidence suggests that Client A's refusal is cost-driven and firm, which means the written record's primary practical effect would be protective of Engineer A rather than persuasive to Client A. This does not diminish the obligation to document: the Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification principle establishes that documentation is required regardless of its persuasive effect, because its function extends beyond the client relationship to the broader public safety record. The written record is the instrument through which Engineer A's professional judgment becomes available to public authorities, future investigators, and regulatory bodies. Its value is not exhausted by its effect on Client A's decision, and the underlying public safety risk remains unresolved regardless of whether Client A is persuaded — which is precisely why the post-withdrawal notification obligation to public authorities is independently required.
In response to Q404: The availability of the newly released algorithm and historic weather data does create a heightened professional duty that did not previously exist to the same degree, and the ethical obligation to recommend the 100-year storm surge standard is correspondingly stronger than it would have been under previously established climate models alone. Professional competence requires engineers to apply the best available tools and data to their assessments; when superior technical tools become available, the standard of care rises accordingly. If Engineer A had relied only on older climate models that did not support the 100-year projection, the obligation to recommend that specific standard would have been weaker — though the obligation to recommend the most protective standard supported by available evidence would have remained. The newly released algorithm does not create the ethical obligation from scratch; it provides the technical basis for a more specific and more demanding recommendation. This also means that Engineer A's obligation to stay current with technical literature and newly released tools is itself an ethical obligation, not merely a professional development aspiration: failing to apply available superior tools when assessing a safety-critical design would itself constitute a failure of professional competence under the circumstances of this case.
The tension between the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation and the Public Welfare Paramount principle was resolved in this case through a clear lexical ordering: Engineer A's duty to serve Client A's interests is bounded by, and ultimately subordinate to, the obligation to hold public safety paramount. The Board's conclusions confirm that Engineer A must first attempt persuasion — satisfying the faithful agent duty by fully informing Client A of the risk and its consequences — but when Client A's cost-driven refusal persists, the public welfare obligation overrides client loyalty and compels withdrawal. This resolution teaches that client service is not an independent ethical value in engineering; it is a conditional obligation that operates only within the space permitted by public safety. The moment client direction would require Engineer A to acquiesce to a design standard that exposes future residents to foreseeable storm surge danger, the faithful agent role collapses into the public welfare role, and the latter governs. Notably, the absence of a local building code does not relax this hierarchy — it intensifies it, because Engineer A's independent professional judgment becomes the only operative safety standard in the jurisdiction.
The tension between the Proportional Escalation Obligation — which calls for graduated steps before withdrawal — and the Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis principle was resolved in this case by treating them as sequentially compatible rather than genuinely conflicting. The Board's recommendation that Engineer A continue to pursue discussions before withdrawing reflects the proportional escalation logic: withdrawal is the terminal step in a graduated response, not the first. However, this sequential compatibility has a critical limit. Once Client A has explicitly and finally refused the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds, continued discussion that merely delays withdrawal without any realistic prospect of changing the client's position would itself become ethically problematic — it would allow Engineer A to remain nominally engaged with a project whose safety standard Engineer A has already determined to be inadequate. The non-acquiescence principle therefore functions as a ceiling on how long proportional escalation may continue: Engineer A may pursue persuasion, but may not use the escalation framework as a pretext for indefinite engagement with a project that endangers the public. This case teaches that proportional escalation is a procedural obligation, not a substantive one — it governs the sequence of Engineer A's response but does not alter the ultimate outcome once client refusal is confirmed.
The interaction between the Climate Change as Moving Target principle and the Professional Competence in Risk Assessment principle reveals an important synthesis: epistemic uncertainty about future climate baselines does not diminish Engineer A's obligation to render a definitive and defensible safety recommendation — it actually strengthens the case for adopting the more protective standard. When the technical baseline is inherently uncertain and evolving, a competent professional does not hedge toward the lower bound of risk; rather, professional competence in a no-code jurisdiction requires Engineer A to apply the best available tools — here, the newly released algorithm and historic weather data — and recommend the standard that accounts for the upper plausible range of foreseeable harm. The availability of superior technical tools creates a heightened professional duty, because Engineer A can no longer claim ignorance of the more protective standard. At the same time, the moving-target nature of climate data requires Engineer A to qualify the recommendation transparently — not to weaken it, but to explain its basis and acknowledge that future data may require design revision. This synthesis teaches that professional competence and epistemic humility are not in conflict: a competent engineer discloses uncertainty while still committing to the most defensible protective standard available at the time of the assessment. The Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle further extends this synthesis: because the climate baseline will continue to evolve, Engineer A's obligation to advocate for a local building code incorporating the 100-year standard is not merely a post-withdrawal courtesy but a forward-looking professional responsibility to ensure that the jurisdiction's regulatory framework keeps pace with improving climate science.
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards — Storm Surge Elevation
From client refusal of the 100-year storm surge recommendation through resolution
Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks even at lower projections of future surge level rise.
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
The identified storm surge risk to the coastal residential development and the client's refusal to implement the recommended protective standard
Client accepts recommendation, engineer withdraws, or risk is formally disclosed to appropriate authorities
Engineer A completed analysis confirming public safety risk at lower storm surge projections; client explicitly refused to implement the recommended 100-year elevation standard
Contact Government Officials for Code Advocacy
Continue Advocating Higher Safety Standard
Continue Advocating Higher Safety Standard (Action 5) → Withdraw from Project (Action 6) / Contact Government Officials for Code Advocacy (Action 7)
After Client A explicitly refuses to fund construction to the 100-year storm surge elevation, what sequence of professional actions must Engineer A take to satisfy the public welfare paramount obligation while respecting the proportional escalation framework?
Engineer A's obligations after Client A refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds — specifically whether Engineer A must continue advocating, document the disagreement in writing, and ultimately withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal is firm.
Continue pursuing substantive discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable danger to future residents, provide written documentation of the 100-year recommendation and Client A's refusal, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and firm after good-faith persuasion efforts are exhausted
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's first explicit refusal of the 100-year standard, without further persuasion attempts, on the grounds that any continued engagement after an unambiguous cost-driven rejection of a safety-critical standard constitutes tacit acquiescence
Remain engaged on the project while continuing to advocate internally for the 100-year standard, on the grounds that Engineer A's continued presence preserves residual influence over design decisions and that a replacement engineer with fewer safety commitments would produce worse outcomes for future residents
Once Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, what is Engineer A's ethically required course of action — continue pursuing discussions with the client, withdraw from the project, or accept a modified standard that partially addresses the risk?
Engineer A's response to Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard: whether to continue advocating, withdraw, or seek a negotiated compromise below the safety threshold
Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable public safety consequences of refusing the 100-year standard, document the recommendation and refusal in writing, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's first explicit refusal of the 100-year standard, without further discussion, on the grounds that any continued engagement after an unambiguous safety-critical rejection constitutes tacit acquiescence
Remain on the project and negotiate a modified storm surge elevation standard that partially closes the gap between Client A's cost preference and the 100-year projection, on the grounds that some improvement over the baseline is better than none and that withdrawal leaves the project to a less safety-conscious engineer
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer
Should Engineer A apply the newly released climate algorithm and historic weather data to determine the 100-year storm surge standard as a definitive professional recommendation, qualify that recommendation to reflect epistemic uncertainty, or defer to previously established climate models pending broader peer validation of the new algorithm?
Engineer A's obligation to apply the newly released climate algorithm and historic weather data as the basis for the storm surge safety recommendation, given the tool's recent release and inherent uncertainty in climate projections
Apply the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to determine the 100-year storm surge standard, present it as the definitive professionally defensible minimum, and explicitly acknowledge in the recommendation that the evolving climate baseline may require future design reassessment
Apply the newly released algorithm to inform the assessment but present the resulting 100-year projection as a preliminary finding subject to peer validation, recommending the client commission independent expert review of the algorithm before committing to the higher design standard
Base the storm surge recommendation on previously established and peer-validated climate models, note the existence of the newly released algorithm as an emerging tool warranting monitoring, and defer full application until the algorithm achieves broader professional acceptance
After withdrawing from the project, is Engineer A obligated to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and advocate for a protective building code, or does withdrawal alone discharge Engineer A's professional ethical obligations?
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify public authorities and advocate for a protective building code in a no-code jurisdiction where the identified storm surge risk persists regardless of which engineer ultimately executes the project
After withdrawing, notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of a protective building code, and actively advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard, providing the technical basis developed during the engagement
After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for storm surge building codes in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific findings, on the grounds that the faithful agent obligation constrains project-specific disclosure even post-withdrawal
Treat withdrawal as fully discharging Engineer A's professional obligations, on the grounds that the risk finding is based on a newly released and not yet broadly validated algorithm, that Engineer A cannot compel the jurisdiction to act, and that post-withdrawal disclosure of a client's project to public authorities exceeds the scope of Engineer A's professional duty
Should Engineer A apply the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to render a definitive 100-year storm surge recommendation, and how should the epistemic uncertainty inherent in evolving climate projections be handled in that recommendation?
Engineer A's obligation to apply the newly released climate algorithm and historic weather data to determine and recommend the 100-year storm surge standard, given inherent uncertainty in climate projections and the absence of a local building code
Apply the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to determine the 100-year storm surge standard, present it as the definitive professional recommendation, and explicitly qualify it as the most protective standard supportable by current best-available evidence while noting that the climate baseline may require future reassessment
Apply the newly released algorithm as one input among several, present the 100-year projection as a preliminary finding subject to further peer validation, and recommend that the client commission an independent technical review before committing to the higher design standard
Rely on previously established and peer-validated climate models to determine the applicable storm surge standard, note the existence of the newly released algorithm in the assessment report as an emerging tool warranting future consideration, and base the formal recommendation on the more conservative of the two outputs
When Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, should Engineer A document the recommendation and refusal in writing, continue pursuing discussions to persuade Client A, or withdraw from the project — and in what sequence must these obligations be discharged?
Engineer A's obligation to formally notify Client A in writing of the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal, and to determine whether to continue advocating or withdraw from the project when Client A refuses the safety-critical standard
Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable risk to future residents, document the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal in writing provided to Client A and retained as a professional record, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous after that written notification
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's explicit refusal of the safety-critical standard, without further discussion, and provide written documentation of the recommendation and refusal to Client A at the time of withdrawal as a formal record of the professional disagreement
Remain engaged on the project while continuing to advocate for the 100-year standard through ongoing discussions, on the basis that Engineer A's continued presence preserves residual influence over the design outcome and that a replacement engineer with fewer safety commitments would produce worse results for future residents
After withdrawing from the project, does Engineer A bear an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code, or is withdrawal a sufficient discharge of Engineer A's professional duty to the public?
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code in a no-code jurisdiction, given that withdrawal alone does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents
After withdrawing, notify local government officials or relevant public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, using the written documentation of the recommendation and Client A's refusal as the basis for that notification, and separately advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard
After withdrawing, engage local government in general terms to advocate for a storm surge building code in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, on the basis that the confidentiality dimension of the former client relationship constrains the scope of permissible post-withdrawal disclosure
Treat withdrawal as a complete discharge of Engineer A's professional obligations in this matter, retain the written documentation as a professional record available if later called upon, and take no further affirmative action toward public authorities on the basis that Engineer A's duty to the public was fulfilled by refusing to participate in the unsafe design and that further action exceeds the scope of Engineer A's post-engagement responsibility
After withdrawing from the project, does Engineer A bear an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and advocate for adoption of a protective building code, or does withdrawal alone discharge Engineer A's professional duty to the public?
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations — specifically whether withdrawal from the project exhausts Engineer A's professional duty or whether the absence of a building code in the jurisdiction triggers an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials and advocate for protective building codes, so that the identified storm surge risk is surfaced to a body capable of acting on it.
After withdrawing from the project, notify appropriate local government officials or public authorities of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately advocate to those officials for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
After withdrawing from the project, treat withdrawal as fully discharging Engineer A's professional obligation — on the grounds that Engineer A's duty runs to the client relationship and that post-withdrawal notification to public authorities exceeds the scope of the engagement and risks breaching client confidentiality regarding project-specific findings
After withdrawing from the project, advocate to local government officials for storm surge building codes in general terms applicable to the broader geographic region — without disclosing Client A's project-specific information — on the grounds that general code advocacy satisfies the public welfare obligation while preserving the boundary between the client engagement and the public sphere
In a jurisdiction with no applicable building code, does Engineer A's professional judgment — informed by newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm — establish the 100-year storm surge elevation as an ethically mandatory design standard that cannot be reduced in response to Client A's cost-driven objections, and does the availability of superior technical tools create a heightened duty that did not previously exist?
Engineer A's obligation to self-impose the 100-year storm surge elevation as a non-negotiable professional safety standard in a no-code jurisdiction, and whether the absence of a regulatory floor — combined with the availability of newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm — creates a heightened professional duty that persists regardless of Client A's cost objections.
Apply the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to establish the 100-year storm surge elevation as the professionally required design standard, present it to Client A as a non-negotiable safety floor grounded in current best-available evidence, and advise Client A in writing that building below that elevation creates material public safety risks — while transparently acknowledging that evolving climate data may require future reassessment
Present the 100-year storm surge elevation as a recommended standard supported by newly released data while explicitly qualifying it as a preliminary finding pending broader peer validation of the algorithm, and offer Client A a range of design options spanning from the 100-year projection to a lower elevation with documented risk differentials — on the grounds that epistemic humility about a newly released tool requires presenting the recommendation as one defensible option rather than a mandatory floor
Apply the newly released algorithm to inform the risk assessment but anchor the formal design recommendation to the most protective standard supported by previously established and peer-validated climate models — on the grounds that recommending a standard derived from a newly released and not yet broadly validated algorithm exposes Engineer A to professional liability and may overstate the certainty of the risk finding in a way that undermines the recommendation's credibility with the client
When a newly released climate algorithm supports a 100-year storm surge standard that Client A refuses on cost grounds, and no local building code exists to establish a regulatory floor, should Engineer A treat that standard as a non-negotiable professional floor and continue advocating it, or calibrate the recommendation to account for algorithmic uncertainty and client budget constraints?
Engineer A's obligation to apply newly released climate algorithm and self-impose the 100-year storm surge standard in a no-code jurisdiction, and whether to continue advocating that standard to Client A despite cost objections
Maintain the 100-year storm surge standard as a non-negotiable professional floor, present it definitively to Client A with transparent acknowledgment of climate projection uncertainty, and continue advocating it through persistent good-faith discussion before any withdrawal decision
Present the 100-year standard as the preferred recommendation but offer a qualified alternative design scenario at a lower elevation with explicit written disclosure of the residual risk, allowing Client A to make an informed cost-risk tradeoff while Engineer A remains engaged
Apply the newly released algorithm to establish the 100-year standard as the technically defensible recommendation, but qualify the recommendation explicitly as preliminary pending broader peer validation of the algorithm, and defer the advocacy posture until the algorithm achieves wider professional acceptance
Once Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds, should Engineer A continue pursuing discussions and provide formal written documentation of the recommendation and refusal before withdrawing, or does the categorical nature of Client A's refusal trigger an obligation to withdraw without further engagement that risks signaling the standard is negotiable?
Engineer A's obligation to pursue persistent persuasion of Client A and provide written documentation of the safety recommendation and refusal before withdrawing, balancing the proportional escalation framework against the non-acquiescence principle
Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A, provide formal written documentation of the 100-year recommendation and Client A's refusal before withdrawing, and treat that written notice as the mechanism that fully discharges the faithful agent duty and triggers the withdrawal obligation if refusal persists
Treat Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal as a categorical rejection that immediately triggers the non-acquiescence obligation, withdraw from the project without further discussion to avoid signaling that the safety standard is negotiable, and provide written documentation of the recommendation and refusal as part of the withdrawal communication
Continue discussions with Client A while simultaneously preparing written documentation of the recommendation and refusal, but condition continued engagement on Client A's willingness to formally acknowledge receipt of the written safety notice — treating that acknowledgment as the threshold that determines whether further persuasion is professionally appropriate or constitutes tacit acquiescence
After withdrawing from the project because Client A refuses the 100-year storm surge standard, does Engineer A bear an affirmative obligation to notify local government officials of the identified risk and advocate for a protective building code — obligations that survive the termination of the client relationship — or does withdrawal discharge Engineer A's professional responsibilities, leaving further action to Engineer A's discretion?
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and advocate for a protective building code in a no-code jurisdiction, where withdrawal alone leaves the public safety risk entirely unaddressed
After withdrawing, proactively notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of a protective building code, provide the written technical record of the 100-year recommendation and Client A's refusal to support regulatory action, and engage in ongoing advocacy for a jurisdiction-wide building code incorporating the 100-year standard
After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for storm surge building codes in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, treating the broader regulatory gap as the appropriate subject of public advocacy while preserving residual confidentiality obligations to the former client
Treat withdrawal as discharging Engineer A's primary professional obligations, retain the written documentation of the recommendation and refusal as a professional record available if later called upon, but defer notification to public authorities unless Engineer A is directly contacted by a regulatory body or future investigator — on the grounds that the risk finding's preliminary algorithmic basis does not yet meet the threshold for mandatory governmental disclosure
When Engineer A has identified a 100-year storm surge standard as the technically defensible safety floor using newly released tools, and Client A refuses on cost grounds in a jurisdiction with no building code, how should Engineer A respond to that refusal?
Engineer A's obligation to recommend and hold firm to the 100-year storm surge design standard in a no-code jurisdiction, applying the newly released algorithm and historic weather data, despite Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal.
Maintain the 100-year storm surge standard as a non-negotiable professional floor, present the recommendation in writing with explicit technical basis and transparent acknowledgment of climate projection uncertainty, and continue advocating that standard to Client A before taking any further escalation step
Present the 100-year standard as the preferred recommendation while offering Client A a formally documented alternative design at a lower storm surge elevation, with written disclosure that the alternative falls below Engineer A's professional safety judgment, allowing Client A to make an informed cost-risk decision
Qualify the 100-year storm surge recommendation as preliminary pending broader peer validation of the newly released algorithm, and propose engaging an independent coastal engineering expert to co-validate the standard before treating it as the binding professional floor in negotiations with Client A
Once Client A has explicitly refused the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds, what combination of written documentation, continued persuasion, and withdrawal timing satisfies Engineer A's proportional escalation obligation without crossing into tacit acquiescence to an unsafe design?
Engineer A's obligation to document the safety recommendation and Client A's refusal in writing, and to determine the appropriate sequence and scope of escalation — including whether to withdraw from the project and how promptly — once Client A's cost-driven refusal is explicit and unambiguous.
Provide Client A with written documentation of the 100-year storm surge recommendation, its full technical basis, and Client A's explicit refusal; continue good-faith persuasion discussions for a defined period; and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains unambiguous after that written notification
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's explicit refusal without further persuasion attempts, providing written documentation of the recommendation and refusal at the time of withdrawal, on the grounds that continued engagement after an unambiguous safety-critical rejection constitutes tacit acquiescence
Continue engaging Client A through ongoing discussions without a defined withdrawal trigger, documenting each exchange, on the grounds that sustained professional presence preserves greater influence over the final design outcome than withdrawal — particularly given the risk that a replacement engineer may apply a lower standard
After withdrawing from the project, what affirmative steps must Engineer A take to discharge the continuing public welfare obligation to future residents who remain exposed to storm surge danger in a jurisdiction with no building code?
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code in the jurisdiction, given that withdrawal alone does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents in a no-code jurisdiction.
After withdrawing, notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately engage those officials to advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard
After withdrawing, limit post-project action to retaining the written documentation of the recommendation and Client A's refusal as a professional record available to any authority that independently initiates an inquiry, without proactively contacting government officials absent a specific regulatory trigger or formal complaint mechanism
After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for a storm surge building code in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, preserving residual confidentiality obligations while still advancing the systemic regulatory gap that the case has revealed
{'project_type': 'Residential condominium development', 'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 07-6'}
Developer client who retained an environmental engineering firm to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential residential condominium development, whose proposal was under consideration by a public authority.
{'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A Threatened Species Case (BER 07-6)'}
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and had been requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium.
Engineer A 100-Year Storm Surge Recommendation Obligation
Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a coastal residential development project in a no-code jurisdiction and determined that the 100-year storm surge elevation is required for public safety.
100-Year Storm Surge Design Standard Recommendation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to formally recommend in writing that Client A's residential development project be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, including the scientific and professional basis for that recommendation derived from newly released climate data and the recently developed modeling algorithm.
Upon completion of the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment, before any design proceeds
Engineer A BER 04-8 Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry Wetland Fill
Engineer A observed that the client had installed fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits, variances, or permissions — a substantial violation of federal and state laws — while driving by the property after completing contracted services
Out-of-Scope Safety Observation Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from remaining silent about the observed unauthorized wetland fill — despite the observation occurring outside the contracted scope of services — and must contact the client, inquire about the actions, point out the legal violation, and direct the client to take remedial steps in compliance with applicable environmental laws.
In its decision, the BER set forth an appropriate course of action for Engineer A, concluding that Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
Upon observing the unauthorized wetland fill on the client's property
If appropriate steps were not taken by the client, Engineer A had an obligation to bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate authorities.
Engineer A BER 04-8 Environmental Law Violation Regulatory Escalation Wetland Fill
If Client failed to remedy the unauthorized wetland fill violation after Engineer A's notification, Engineer A was obligated to report to appropriate authorities
Environmental Standards Violation Regulatory Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from treating client non-compliance with the directive to remediate the unauthorized wetland fill as a final resolution — if the client fails to take appropriate remedial steps, Engineer A must bring the matter to the attention of the appropriate regulatory authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics paramount public safety and environmental protection provisions; BER Case No. 04-8
Following client's failure to take appropriate remedial steps after Engineer A's notification
Engineer A BER 07-6 Threatened Species Client Notification Inclusion Constraint
Engineer A was obligated to include the threatened species findings and advise the developer client of their inclusion, notwithstanding any client preference to omit the findings
Client Instruction Report Suppression Prohibition Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from suppressing or omitting the threatened species findings from the public authority report at the developer client's implicit or explicit direction — Engineer A must advise the client that the information will be included in the written report, prohibiting client-directed omission of material environmental findings from a public authority submission.
Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
Prior to and at the time of submitting the written environmental analysis report to the public authority
Engineer A BER 07-6 Threatened Species Report Inclusion Constraint
Engineer A's firm biologist reported that the condominium project could threaten a bird species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators; Engineer A was obligated to include this in the report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal
Engineer A is constrained from omitting the biologist's threatened species findings from the written report submitted to the public authority — the threatened status of the bird species, even though not formally 'endangered,' constitutes relevant and pertinent information that must be included in the professional report.
NSPE Code of Ethics objectivity and completeness provisions; BER Case No. 07-6
The BER determined that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that would be submitted to a public authority that was considering the developer's proposal.
At the time of preparing and submitting the written environmental analysis report to the public authority
The BER noted that engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
Engineer A Building Code Advocacy Storm Surge
Building Code Advocacy for Coastal Storm Surge Protection Capability
Engineer A should possess the capability to recognize the professional opportunity and obligation to advocate to local government officials for adoption of building codes addressing 100-year storm surge elevation requirements, given the identified public safety risk and the absence of applicable codes in the geographic area.
The geographic area has no applicable building code, and Engineer A has identified a 100-year storm surge risk, creating the professional opportunity to advocate to local government officials for code adoption addressing storm surge elevation requirements.
The no-code jurisdiction context and identified storm surge risk create the professional opportunity for Engineer A to advocate for building code adoption as identified in the Building Code Advocacy for Storm Surge Protection Obligation
Engineer A (Present Case Coastal Risk Assessment)
The geographic area in which Client A is planning to build the project currently has no building code in place.
Engineer A Building Code Advocacy Storm Surge Obligation
The geographic area has no applicable building code, and Engineer A has identified a public safety risk from storm surge that no regulatory standard currently addresses.
Building Code Advocacy for Storm Surge Protection Obligation
Engineer A should consider advocating to local government officials for adoption of building codes that address 100-year storm surge elevation requirements, so that future development in the no-code jurisdiction is subject to enforceable minimum safety standards protecting residents from foreseeable climate-driven storm surge risk.
Following completion of the risk assessment and upon or after Client A's refusal to accept the recommendation
Engineer A Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure — Storm Surge Elevation
Client A's cost-based refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation creates a material safety gap. Engineer A must disclose this gap and its consequences to Client A and, if appropriate, to regulatory authorities.
Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to disclose to Client A and relevant decision-making authorities the resilience gap created by Client A's cost-based refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — including the specific public safety risk created by building at a lower elevation — prohibiting Engineer A from presenting the cost-constrained design as fully equivalent to the recommended protective standard without disclosing the safety gap created by the capital constraint.
NSPE Code of Ethics — completeness and objectivity; Capital Constraint Resilience Gap Disclosure Constraint as established in ontology
Following Client A's explicit refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Engineer A Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Storm Surge
Engineer A must possess the capability to clearly and completely communicate to Client A that the refusal to fund construction to the 100-year storm surge elevation creates a material public safety risk — including the specific nature of the storm surge risk, the basis for the 100-year recommendation, and the consequences of building below that elevation — in a timely and ethically complete manner.
Engineer A must communicate to Client A that the cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation creates material public safety risks for future residents.
The Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Storm Surge Obligation requires Engineer A to communicate the public safety consequences of Client A's cost-driven decision
Engineer A Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Storm Surge Obligation
Client A refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation because of the increased cost, requiring Engineer A to communicate that this budget constraint creates material public safety risks.
Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to clearly communicate to Client A that Client A's refusal to fund construction to the 100-year storm surge elevation creates and materially increases risks to public safety, health, and welfare — specifically the risk to future residents from storm surge events — and to document that communication.
Upon Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge recommendation on cost grounds
Engineer A Client Budget Limitation Storm Surge Design Constraint
Client A has refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation because of the increased cost. This creates a resource constraint that limits Engineer A's ability to implement the recommended protective standard, but does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to recommend the standard, document the refusal, and assess whether escalation is warranted.
Engineer A faces a resource constraint arising from Client A's refusal to fund construction to the 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds — this budget limitation restricts the scope of protective measures that can be implemented, creating tension between the economically feasible solution preferred by the client and the professionally required standard of protection identified by Engineer A's technical analysis.
Client A's explicit cost-based refusal; NSPE Code of Ethics resource constraint framework
Following Client A's explicit refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds
Engineer A Client Budget Limitation Storm Surge Design Standard
Client A refused to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, creating a resource constraint that Engineer A cannot allow to override the paramount public safety obligation
Engineer A faces a resource constraint arising from Client A's financial limitations and cost-reduction objectives that restricts the client's willingness to fund construction to the 100-year storm surge elevation — creating tension between the economically feasible solution preferred by the client and the professionally required safety standard determined by Engineer A.
Resource constraint arising from client financial limitations; NSPE Code of Ethics
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Client A on the coastal residential development project
Engineer A Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Storm Surge Constraint
Client A has explicitly refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation because of the increased cost. Engineer A's technical analysis using newly released climate data and algorithm establishes that this elevation is necessary for public safety. The project jurisdiction has no building code, so there is no regulatory minimum that would independently compel the client to adopt the recommended standard.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — Engineer A's paramount obligation to public safety prohibits acceptance of a lower design standard when Engineer A's own technical analysis has established that the lower standard creates material public safety risk to future residents of the coastal residential development.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I — public safety paramount; BER Case 84-5 precedent on non-acquiescence to client economic override of safety measures
Engineer A Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Storm Surge Safety
Client A refused Engineer A's recommendation to build to 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds; Engineer A must not accept the lower standard
Client Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Standard Non-Acquiescence Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation — Engineer A must maintain the professional recommendation, document the client's refusal, and assess whether escalation to appropriate authorities is warranted.
NSPE Code of Ethics paramount public safety canon; Client Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Standard Non-Acquiescence Constraint (previously extracted)
Upon and following Client A's refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger in which future residents, as well as the general public, could be placed.
Engineer A Client Cost-Refusal Withdrawal Trigger Storm Surge
Engineer A determined based on newly released climate data and storm surge modeling algorithm that the coastal residential development must be built to 100-year projected storm surge elevation; Client A refused on cost grounds
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
Engineer A must withdraw from the coastal residential development project if Client A definitively refuses to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard after Engineer A has exhausted persistent persuasion efforts — Engineer A cannot continue providing professional services that would facilitate construction to a standard Engineer A has determined to be inadequate for public safety.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis establishing withdrawal obligation after client refusal of safety standard
Upon Client A's definitive refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard after persistent persuasion
Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
Engineer A demonstrates the capability to recognize that the no-code jurisdiction has not adopted design standards reflecting current climate science — including updated storm surge projections — and to identify the resulting gap between the absence of regulatory requirements and the actual risk to public welfare, applying newly released climate data and algorithms to assess whether the absence of a code standard is nonetheless inadequate to protect public welfare.
Engineer A identified the gap between the absence of applicable building codes and the actual storm surge risk determined through application of newly released climate data and algorithms.
Identifying that the no-code jurisdiction lacks storm surge design requirements and that the actual risk — based on newly released data — requires a 100-year storm surge design elevation that no regulation mandates
Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap — No Code Jurisdiction
The project jurisdiction has no building code, meaning there is no regulatory floor requiring any storm surge design standard. Engineer A's professional analysis establishes that the 100-year standard is necessary. The absence of a code does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to recommend and advocate for the professionally determined standard.
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from treating the absence of any applicable local building code — or any existing code that has not been updated to reflect current climate science — as a complete discharge of professional obligations, when Engineer A has affirmative knowledge from newly released climate data and algorithm that the absence of a code-mandated standard creates a material public safety risk from storm surge at the proposed residential development site.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount; Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint as established in ontology
Throughout the coastal risk assessment engagement and following client refusal
Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Storm Surge Obligation
Engineer A applied newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine the appropriate storm surge design standard.
Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions — including storm surge projections — as a dynamic, evolving moving target rather than as fixed historical baselines, incorporating newly released climate data and the recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm into the coastal risk assessment rather than relying solely on historical datasets.
During performance of the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Adaptation
Climate Moving Target Design Adaptation Capability
Engineer A demonstrates the capability to treat future climate and weather conditions — including storm surge projections — as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines, by applying newly released data and recently developed algorithms that incorporate newly identified historic weather data to update storm surge design recommendations.
Engineer A's use of newly released information and a recently developed algorithm reflects treatment of climate projections as a dynamic moving target requiring updated analysis rather than reliance on static historical baselines.
Application of newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm to revise storm surge design elevation recommendations beyond what older data would have indicated
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint — Coastal Storm Surge
Engineer A has applied newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, resulting in a determination that the 100-year storm surge elevation standard is necessary. This reflects the obligation to treat climate baselines as dynamic rather than static.
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for the coastal residential development design — Engineer A must incorporate the newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm, including newly identified historic weather data, into the coastal risk assessment, prohibiting reliance on static historical datasets as a complete discharge of the obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare under foreseeable future conditions.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount; professional competence obligation; Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint as established in ontology
Throughout the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment engagement
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Storm Surge
Engineer A's determination was based on newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data, reflecting the dynamic nature of climate baselines
Engineer A is constrained from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for the coastal residential development design — Engineer A must incorporate dynamic, forward-looking climate projections including newly released storm surge modeling algorithms into the design evaluation.
NSPE Code of Ethics competence and public safety provisions; Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
Throughout the coastal risk assessment and design standard determination for the residential development project
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment 100-Year Storm Surge Design Standard Recommendation
Engineer A determined based on hydrodynamic modeling and newly released climate data that the 100-year storm surge elevation was required to protect future residents and the public; Client A refused on cost grounds
Engineer A (coastal risk assessment, present case)
Engineer A was obligated to formally recommend to Client A that the residential development project be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation, including the scientific and professional basis for the recommendation — specifically the newly released climate data and recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data — even when Client A refused to accept the increased cost.
Engineer A has determined, based on historical weather patterns and data, that the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation.
Upon completion of the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment, and before or upon Client A's cost-driven refusal
The BER must presume that Engineer A's determination is based upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a less stringent standard would place future residents, as well as the general public, at risk and have the potential to cause significant property and environmental damage.
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Building Code Advocacy
The geographic area has no applicable building code governing storm surge elevation; Engineer A identified a public safety risk arising from this regulatory gap
Engineer A should consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built, addressing 100-year storm surge elevation requirements.
After withdrawing from the project or upon determining that the regulatory gap creates a broader public safety risk requiring advocacy
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence
Client A refused to accept the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds; Engineer A must not adopt a less stringent standard at client direction
Client Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Storm Surge Safety Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refrain from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, recognizing that Client A's economic objection did not authorize Engineer A to certify, proceed with, or remain silent about a design that Engineer A's professional judgment identified as inadequate to protect future residents and the general public from foreseeable storm surge risk.
Upon Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination
Client A sought to reduce costs by building to a less stringent storm surge standard; Engineer A's professional determination established that safety must prevail over cost
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to determine and communicate to Client A that the client's legitimate cost-reduction interest, when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property from building below the 100-year storm surge elevation, must yield to the safety consideration.
Upon Client A's cost-driven refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (private practice)', 'specialty': 'Hydrodynamic modeling, coastal risk assessment, climate change and sea level rise analysis', 'practice_context': 'Private practice', 'regulatory_context': 'Geographic area with no applicable building code'}
Retained by Client A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a residential development project near a coastal area; applied newly released data and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data; determined the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation due to public safety risks; faces client refusal to adopt the recommended design standard on cost grounds.
{'type': 'public_safety_obligation_toward', 'target': 'Future Residents and Public'}
{'type': 'service_provider_to', 'target': 'Client A Developer'}
Climate-Aware Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer
Engineer A is an engineer in private practice
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Newly Released Climate Algorithm Application Competence
Engineer A applied newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Newly Released Climate Algorithm Application Competence Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to apply newly released climate data and a recently developed modeling algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data in performing the coastal risk assessment, recognizing that reliance on outdated datasets when superior tools were available would constitute a failure of technical currency that could result in underestimation of storm surge risk.
During the performance of the hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment No-Code Jurisdiction Climate Risk Proactive Disclosure
The geographic area has no applicable building code governing storm surge elevation; Engineer A identified this regulatory gap as a material public safety concern
No-Code Jurisdiction Climate Risk Proactive Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to proactively disclose to Client A, local government officials, and relevant stakeholders that the geographic area has no applicable building code establishing a minimum enforceable standard protecting future residents from storm surge risk, and that Engineer A's professional judgment establishes a safety-based design standard that exceeds any regulatory minimum, so that decision-makers are not misled into believing that proceeding without a code-mandated standard is equivalent to proceeding safely.
Upon identifying the absence of applicable building codes and before or upon delivery of the coastal risk assessment findings
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Objective Completeness Public Authority Reports
Engineer A's coastal risk assessment findings, including the basis for the 100-year storm surge standard recommendation, must be completely and objectively reported to any public authority considering the development
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to be objective and truthful in any professional reports, statements, or testimony submitted to public authorities, and to include all relevant and pertinent information — including the newly released climate data, the recently developed algorithm, and the professionally determined 100-year storm surge elevation standard — in such reports.
Upon preparation and submission of any professional report or testimony to public authorities regarding the coastal development project
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Persistent Client Persuasion Before Withdrawal
Client A refused to accept Engineer A's professionally determined 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds; Engineer A must pursue persuasion before withdrawal
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to continue pursuing substantive discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the general public from building below the 100-year storm surge elevation, and of the potential for significant property and environmental damage, before withdrawing from the project.
Upon Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge standard and before withdrawal from the project
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Post-Cost-Refusal Escalation Assessment
Client A refused to build to the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds; Engineer A must assess whether withdrawal alone is sufficient or whether escalation to authorities is required
Post-Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Escalation Assessment Obligation
After Client A refused to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard, Engineer A was obligated to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including the risk to future residents of the coastal residential development and the general public — was sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to local government officials, regulatory authorities, or the public.
Upon Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard and upon or after withdrawal from the project
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Written Documentation Constraint
Engineer A has performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and reached a professional determination that the 100-year storm surge elevation is necessary. Any written report must include this finding, its technical basis, and the client's refusal, to provide a complete and accurate record.
Engineer A is constrained to include all relevant and pertinent factual information in any written report or professional documentation arising from the coastal risk assessment — including the 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation, its technical basis in the newly released climate data and algorithm, the identified public safety risk at lower design elevations, and Client A's refusal to adopt the recommended standard — prohibiting selective omission of known facts even when verbally communicated to the client.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and completeness; BER Case No. 07-6 precedent on inclusion of all relevant information in professional reports
Throughout the coastal risk assessment engagement and at the time of any written report submission
Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Written Documentation Safety Recommendation
Engineer A determined the 100-year storm surge standard was required; Client A refused on cost grounds; written documentation of the recommendation and refusal is required
Coastal Risk Assessment Written Documentation of Safety Recommendation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to document in writing the recommendation to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, the scientific and professional basis for it including the specific data sources and algorithms applied, Client A's refusal to accept the recommendation, and Engineer A's professional objection — so that the record reflects Engineer A's compliance with the paramount public welfare obligation and preserves evidence of Engineer A's professional judgment and Client A's assumption of responsibility.
Upon making the recommendation and upon Client A's refusal, and before or upon withdrawal from the project
Engineer A Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Storm Surge Non-Subordination
Client A sought to reduce costs by building below the 100-year storm surge elevation recommended by Engineer A based on newly released climate data
Long-Term Public Welfare Non-Subordination to Short-Term Gain Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from subordinating the paramount public safety obligation — protection of future residents and the general public from storm surge risk — to Client A's legitimate but lesser economic interest in reducing construction costs, establishing that the magnitude of the identified risk to life, property, and environmental welfare is the controlling factor.
NSPE Code of Ethics paramount public safety canon; BER case analysis
Engineer A Environmental Protection Additional Responsibility Storm Surge
Engineer A's determination that the lower design standard would have the potential to cause significant property and environmental damage triggers additional environmental protection responsibilities under NSPE Code Section III.2.d
Engineer A is subject to additional professional responsibilities for the protection of the environment arising from NSPE Code Section III.2.d — constraining Engineer A to consider and address the potential for significant environmental damage from storm surge when evaluating the adequacy of the proposed design standard and when advocating for regional building code adoption.
NSPE Code Section III.2.d. places some additional responsibilities on engineers for the protection of the environment.
Throughout Engineer A's engagement with Client A and in any subsequent advocacy with local government officials
the potential for significant property and environmental damage.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Storm Surge
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to correctly calibrate the faithful agent written risk notification obligation — recognizing that the duty extends to advising Client A in writing that building below the 100-year storm surge elevation creates material public safety risks, without expanding the contracted scope of work or substituting for the client's decision-making authority.
Engineer A must advise Client A in writing of the public safety risks created by the decision to build below the 100-year storm surge elevation, fulfilling the faithful agent written risk notification obligation identified in the case.
The obligation to advise Client A in writing of the storm surge risk arising from the cost-driven refusal to build to the recommended elevation, calibrated to the notification duty without scope expansion
Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Storm Surge Obligation
Engineer A identified a foreseeable storm surge risk to future residents of Client A's coastal residential development and must notify Client A in writing as a faithful agent.
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to advise Client A in writing that building the residential development below the 100-year storm surge elevation creates material public safety risks — including the specific nature of those risks and the professional basis for the recommendation — so that Client A has clear documented notice of the engineer's professional judgment and the consequences of proceeding at a lower elevation.
Upon completion of the risk assessment and before any design proceeds at a lower elevation
Engineer A Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Storm Surge Obligation
Client A refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds, requiring Engineer A to formally notify Client A that the project will not achieve its public safety objective at the lower elevation.
Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to formally advise Client A in writing that the residential development project — defined in terms of its public safety objective of protecting future residents from storm surge — will not succeed in protecting the public from danger if built below the 100-year storm surge elevation, so that Client A has clear notice that Engineer A's professional judgment is that the project as currently planned will not achieve its safety purpose.
Upon Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge recommendation
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Storm Surge
Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — including first engaging Client A in substantive discussion, then proposing intermediate steps such as regulatory notification, and only withdrawing after good-faith escalation efforts have been exhausted — rather than immediately withdrawing or immediately escalating to regulatory authorities.
Following Client A's cost-driven refusal of the 100-year storm surge recommendation, Engineer A must navigate a graduated escalation sequence before considering withdrawal from the project.
The Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Storm Surge Obligation requires Engineer A to pursue a graduated escalation sequence rather than immediate withdrawal or immediate regulatory reporting
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Storm Surge Obligation
Client A refused to accept Engineer A's 100-year storm surge recommendation on cost grounds, triggering the graduated escalation obligation before withdrawal is appropriate.
Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A is obligated, following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps — first engaging Client A in substantive discussion about the need for the recommended standard, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration, and only withdrawing from the project if Client A refuses both courses of action — before treating withdrawal as the appropriate response.
Following Client A's refusal to accept the 100-year storm surge recommendation
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal — Storm Surge Client Refusal
Client A has refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds. Engineer A must pursue graduated escalation steps before withdrawal, including proposing that the concern be included in an engineering report for regulatory consideration and advocating to local government for building code adoption.
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint
Engineer A is constrained, following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, to pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps — including direct client discussion, proposal to include the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration, and advocacy to local government for building code adoption — before withdrawing from the project, prohibiting both premature withdrawal that bypasses available intermediate engagement steps and indefinite continuation without escalation when the client refuses all intermediate steps.
NSPE Code of Ethics — graduated engagement obligation; Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint as established in ontology
Engineer A Hydrodynamic Modeling Coastal Risk Assessment Competence
Hydrodynamic Modeling and Coastal Risk Assessment Competence
Engineer A possesses expert-level hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment competence, enabling application of newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine that the residential development project should be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation.
Engineer A was retained to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a coastal residential development project in a no-code jurisdiction, and applied newly released climate data and algorithms to reach a 100-year storm surge design standard recommendation.
Application of newly released information and a recently developed algorithm including newly identified historic weather data to determine the appropriate storm surge design elevation for Client A's residential development project
Engineer A is retained by Client A, a developer, to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment in connection with potential climate change and sea level rise for a residential development project near a coastal area.
Engineer A Newly Released Algorithm Application Competence
Engineer A possesses the technical competence to identify, access, and apply newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithms — including newly identified historic weather data — to coastal risk assessment, fulfilling the obligation to apply current technical methods rather than outdated approaches.
Engineer A applied newly released information and a recently developed algorithm to coastal risk assessment, demonstrating currency with the latest technical methods as required by the Newly Released Climate Algorithm Application Competence Obligation.
Application of a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine the 100-year storm surge design elevation recommendation
Engineer A Newly Released Algorithm Application Competence Obligation
Engineer A applied newly released information and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine the appropriate design standard for the coastal residential development.
Engineer A is obligated to apply newly released climate data and the recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm — including newly identified historic weather data — in performing the coastal risk assessment, rather than relying on outdated datasets, so that the risk assessment reflects the current state of professional knowledge.
Engineer A Newly Released Algorithm Competence Currency Constraint — Coastal Storm Surge
Engineer A has applied newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data. This reflects the competence obligation to apply current best available technical tools to professional analysis.
Newly Released Climate Algorithm Competence Currency Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to apply the newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm — including newly identified historic weather data — to the coastal risk assessment, prohibiting reliance on outdated datasets or superseded modeling methods when current professional knowledge establishes that the newly released algorithm produces a materially different and more protective safety standard determination.
NSPE Code of Ethics — professional competence obligation; Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Constraint as established in ontology
Engineer A Newly Released Algorithm Competence Currency Storm Surge
Engineer A's determination that the project should be built to 100-year storm surge elevation was based on newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data
Engineer A is constrained from relying on outdated datasets or superseded modeling methods when newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data are available and produce materially different and more protective safety standard determinations.
NSPE Code of Ethics competence provisions; Newly Released Climate Algorithm Competence Currency Constraint (previously extracted)
At the time of performing coastal risk assessment for the residential development project
Engineer A No-Code Jurisdiction Climate Risk Disclosure Obligation
The geographic area in which Client A plans to build has no building code in place, creating a regulatory gap that Engineer A must affirmatively disclose.
Engineer A is obligated to proactively disclose to Client A and local government officials that the geographic area has no applicable building code, that this regulatory gap means no minimum enforceable standard protects future residents from storm surge risk, and that Engineer A's professional judgment establishes a safety-based design standard that exceeds any regulatory minimum.
Upon identifying the absence of applicable building code and completing the risk assessment
Engineer A No-Code Jurisdiction Proactive Safety Standard Recommendation
No-Code Jurisdiction Proactive Safety Standard Recommendation Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the absence of a building code in the geographic area does not relieve the professional obligation to recommend the appropriate safety standard — the 100-year storm surge design elevation — and to proactively make that recommendation to Client A and relevant local government officials based on professional judgment and newly available technical data.
Engineer A operated in a no-code jurisdiction and nonetheless recommended the 100-year storm surge design standard based on professional judgment and newly released technical data, fulfilling the No-Code Jurisdiction Climate Risk Proactive Disclosure Obligation.
Recommending the 100-year storm surge design elevation to Client A despite the absence of any applicable building code requiring such a standard
Engineer A No-Code Jurisdiction Safety Standard Self-Imposition Storm Surge
The geographic area of the proposed coastal residential development has no applicable building code, creating a regulatory vacuum that does not relieve Engineer A of the professional obligation to recommend the appropriate safety standard
No-Code Jurisdiction Engineer Safety Standard Self-Imposition Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from treating the absence of a building code in the project jurisdiction as implicit permission to accept a lower storm surge design standard — Engineer A must recommend and advocate for the professionally determined 100-year storm surge elevation standard regardless of the absence of a regulatory floor requiring any specific standard.
NSPE Code of Ethics; No-Code Jurisdiction Engineer Safety Standard Self-Imposition Constraint (previously extracted)
Engineer A No-Code Jurisdiction Self-Imposed Safety Standard Constraint
The geographic area of the coastal residential development has no applicable building code, meaning there is no regulatory minimum requiring any storm surge design standard. Engineer A's professional analysis using newly released climate data and algorithm establishes that the 100-year standard is necessary for public safety.
Engineer A is constrained from treating the absence of a building code in the project jurisdiction as permission to accept a design standard lower than the 100-year storm surge elevation that Engineer A's own technical analysis has determined is necessary for public safety — the absence of a regulatory floor does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to recommend and advocate for the professionally determined standard.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount obligation; professional engineering competence and objectivity standards
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client Cost Refusal Storm Surge Obligation
Client A refused to agree to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation because of the increased cost, creating a direct conflict between the client's economic interest and Engineer A's professional safety determination.
Engineer A is obligated to refrain from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — Engineer A must not certify, proceed with, or remain silent about a design that Engineer A's professional judgment identifies as inadequate to protect future residents from foreseeable storm surge risk.
Engineer A Persistent Persuasion Before Withdrawal Storm Surge
Engineer A must exhaust persuasion efforts before withdrawing from the project following Client A's cost-driven refusal of the safety standard
Engineer A is constrained from immediately withdrawing from the coastal residential development project upon Client A's initial refusal — Engineer A must first pursue persistent discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the public before withdrawal becomes the appropriate response.
NSPE Code of Ethics faithful agent and public safety provisions; BER case analysis
Following Client A's initial refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard and prior to withdrawal
Engineer A Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Storm Surge
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to assess whether Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — after Engineer A has formally communicated the safety concern — requires escalation to a state regulatory agency or other appropriate authority, and to make the formal regulatory report when the gravity of the storm surge danger meets the escalation threshold.
Engineer A's storm surge safety recommendation was refused by Client A on cost grounds, requiring assessment of whether the public safety risk to future residents requires escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities.
Client A's refusal of the 100-year storm surge recommendation triggers the obligation to assess whether regulatory escalation is required, consistent with BER Case 20-4 precedent
Engineer A Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Constraint — Storm Surge
Client A has refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds. The project jurisdiction has no building code. Engineer A must assess whether escalation to local government or other regulatory authorities is warranted given the gravity of the identified public safety risk.
Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained, following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including the risk to future residents and the absence of any building code in the jurisdiction — warrants escalation to local government officials or other appropriate regulatory authorities, prohibiting passive acceptance of the client's refusal as a complete discharge of Engineer A's public safety obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics — public safety paramount; Post-Client-Override Public Safety Regulatory Escalation Constraint as established in ontology; BER Case No. 04-8
Engineer A Post-Cost-Refusal Escalation Assessment Storm Surge Obligation
Following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, Engineer A must determine whether the public safety risk requires escalation beyond the client relationship, particularly given the absence of any applicable building code.
Engineer A is obligated to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including the risk to future residents of the coastal residential development — is sufficiently serious to require escalation beyond the client relationship to local government officials, regulatory authorities, or the public, and to take such escalation steps if the risk warrants it.
Engineer A Post-Withdrawal Regional Code Advocacy Storm Surge
The geographic area has no applicable building code; Engineer A's advocacy for regional code adoption serves the broader public interest beyond the immediate client dispute
Post-Client-Refusal Regional Code Advocacy Permissibility Constraint
Engineer A is permitted and encouraged — but not mandated — to contact local government officials following withdrawal from the project to advocate for the adoption of updated region-wide building codes incorporating 100-year storm surge elevation requirements, provided such advocacy does not disclose client-confidential project specifics.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.2.d; BER case analysis
Following withdrawal from the coastal residential development project
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Disclosure Qualification — Storm Surge Risk
Engineer A's determination is based on newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm. While this constitutes a professional judgment grounded in current best available science, Engineer A should communicate the basis and any limitations of the determination alongside the recommendation.
Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Constraint
Engineer A is constrained, when disclosing the identified storm surge risk to Client A and relevant parties, to clearly communicate the professional basis and limitations of the risk determination — including that it is grounded in newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm — prohibiting both silence about the identified risk and overstatement of its certainty as an established regulatory requirement, and requiring that the engineer communicate the basis and limitations of the professional judgment alongside the risk disclosure.
NSPE Code of Ethics — objectivity and truthfulness; Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Constraint as established in ontology
At the time of communicating the 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation to Client A
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Storm Surge
Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to disclose the identified storm surge risk to Client A and relevant parties while clearly communicating the professional basis for the recommendation — including the newly released data and recently developed algorithm — and accurately qualifying the preliminary nature of any projections, ensuring the disclosure is neither overstated nor understated.
Engineer A's storm surge recommendation is based on newly released information and a recently developed algorithm, requiring accurate qualification of the basis and confidence level of the professional judgment when disclosing the risk to Client A.
The obligation to disclose storm surge risk based on newly released data and a recently developed algorithm while accurately representing the confidence level and basis of the professional judgment
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Storm Surge Obligation
Engineer A's determination is based on newly released information and a recently developed algorithm, and the disclosure must accurately represent the professional basis for the recommendation.
Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose the identified storm surge risk to Client A and relevant parties while clearly communicating the professional basis and any limitations of the risk assessment — including the reliance on newly released data and a recently developed algorithm — so that recipients understand the basis of the assessment and can make informed decisions about whether to authorize further analysis or accept the recommended design standard.
Upon completion of the risk assessment and delivery of the recommendation to Client A
Engineer A Present Case Building Code Advocacy Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize the professional opportunity and obligation to advocate to local government officials for adoption of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes addressing storm surge elevation requirements in all jurisdictions in the geographic area where the residential development project is being built.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who, after recommending the 100-year storm surge standard and facing client refusal, was directed by the BER to consider advocating for regional building code adoption.
The BER's direction that Engineer A should consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes in all jurisdictions for the geographical area where or near where the residential development project is being built.
Engineer A Present Case Climate Moving Target Design Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize and apply the principle that future climate and weather conditions — including storm surge projections — must be treated as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines, including applying newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data to determine the appropriate design elevation.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who applied newly released climate data and recently developed modeling algorithm to determine the appropriate storm surge design elevation, treating climate projections as a dynamic moving target.
Application of newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm — rather than relying solely on historical baselines — to determine the 100-year storm surge design standard for the residential development project.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Coastal risk assessment, hydrodynamic modeling', 'design_standard_recommended': '100-year projected storm surge elevation', 'technical_basis': 'Newly released data and recently developed algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data'}
Licensed professional engineer who determined, based on historical weather patterns, newly released data, and a recently developed algorithm, that a residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, and who faces client refusal to adopt that standard on cost grounds, bearing obligations to continue advocating for the standard, withdraw if the client refuses, and consider contacting local government officials to advocate for updated regional building codes.
{'type': 'advocates_to', 'target': 'Local Government Officials'}
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client A Cost-Refusing Developer'}
Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes
Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger
Engineer A Present Case Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination Capability
Cost-Benefit Safety Primacy Determination and Communication Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to determine, based on technical analysis of historical weather patterns and newly released climate data, that the substantial risk to life and property from storm surge required building to the 100-year storm surge elevation, and that this safety consideration must prevail over Client A's legitimate but insufficient cost-reduction interest.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer retained for coastal risk assessment who determined the 100-year storm surge standard was required and maintained that determination against client cost objections.
Application of newly released climate data and recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm to determine the 100-year storm surge design standard, followed by maintenance of that determination in the face of Client A's cost-driven refusal.
Engineer A Present Case Hydrodynamic Modeling Capability
Engineer A possessed the technical capability to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment — including application of newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data — sufficient to determine that the residential development project should be built to the 100-year projected storm surge elevation.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer retained for coastal risk assessment who applied newly released climate data and recently developed modeling algorithm to determine the 100-year storm surge design standard.
Application of historical weather patterns, newly released climate data, and a recently developed algorithm to determine the appropriate storm surge design elevation for the residential development project.
Engineer A Present Case No-Code Jurisdiction Proactive Safety Recommendation Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the geographic area had no applicable building code addressing storm surge elevation requirements, and to proactively recommend the 100-year storm surge design standard to Client A and local government officials based on professional judgment and newly available technical data, even without a regulatory mandate compelling the recommendation.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer performing coastal risk assessment in a geographic area with no applicable building code who proactively recommended the 100-year storm surge standard.
Determination and recommendation of the 100-year storm surge design standard in a geographic area with no applicable building code, based on newly released climate data and recently developed modeling algorithm.
Engineer A Present Case Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Capability
Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to continue pursuing substantive discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger to future residents and the general public from building below the 100-year storm surge elevation, before resorting to project withdrawal.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who recommended the 100-year storm surge standard and faced client refusal on cost grounds, required to pursue persuasion before withdrawal.
The BER's direction that Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A to convince Client A of the danger, and that withdrawal is the appropriate step only if Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard.
Engineer A Present Case Post-Cost-Refusal Escalation Assessment Capability
Storm Surge Post-Refusal Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified storm surge risk — including risks to future residents and the general public — required escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities or local government officials, and to act on that assessment by making formal reports or notifications when the threshold was met.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who, after client refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard, was directed to assess and pursue escalation to local government officials.
The BER's direction that Engineer A should consider contacting local government officials to advocate for building code adoption, indicating that escalation beyond the client relationship is appropriate given the gravity of the identified storm surge risk.
Engineer A Present Case Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare — including the safety of future residents and the general public from storm surge risk — must override client cost preferences, and to correctly prioritize public welfare as paramount in the conflict between Client A's cost-reduction interest and the identified storm surge risk.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who recognized that public welfare paramountcy required maintaining the 100-year storm surge recommendation despite client cost objections.
Determination that the 100-year storm surge standard must prevail over Client A's cost-reduction preference, and the BER's confirmation that the substantial risk to life and property must prevail over the legitimate but insufficient cost consideration.
when weighed against the apparent substantial risk to life and property, the latter consideration should prevail.
Engineer A Present Case Storm Surge Non-Acquiescence Capability
Storm Surge Elevation Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to refrain from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, to maintain the professional recommendation, and to pursue graduated escalation — including continued client persuasion and ultimately project withdrawal — rather than accepting the client's override of the safety standard.
Present case: Licensed professional engineer who faced client refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard on cost grounds and was required to maintain the recommendation and pursue escalation.
The BER's direction that Engineer A should continue to pursue discussions with Client A and, if Client A refuses, should withdraw from the project rather than acquiescing to the less stringent standard.
Engineer A Private Practice Client Relationship
From retention by Client A through the current dispute over storm surge elevation standard
Engineer A's professional engagement with Client A (developer)
Not yet terminated — relationship is active
Engineer A retained by Client A to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Engineer A Project Failure Risk Notification Storm Surge
Project Success Redefinition for Safety Failure Advisory Capability
Engineer A must possess the capability to redefine 'project success' in terms of the public health and safety objective — building to the 100-year storm surge elevation — and on that basis to formally advise Client A in writing that the residential development project, as currently planned below that elevation, will not be successful because it cannot achieve the paramount safety objective.
Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation requires Engineer A to formally advise that the project as planned cannot achieve the public safety objective, redefining project success in safety terms.
The Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Storm Surge Obligation requires Engineer A to advise Client A that the project as planned cannot achieve its public safety objective
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Client Cost Preference Storm Surge
Engineer A determined that building below the 100-year storm surge elevation would place future residents and the general public at risk and have the potential to cause significant property and environmental damage
Engineer A is constrained by the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount over client cost preferences — prohibiting Engineer A from proceeding with a design standard that creates material risk to future residents and the general public even under Client A's direction to reduce costs.
NSPE Code of Ethics paramount public safety canon; NSPE Code Section I.1
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Over Client Cost Preference — Storm Surge
Client A has refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation because of increased cost. Engineer A's technical analysis establishes that this elevation is necessary for public safety of future residents. The public safety paramount obligation constrains Engineer A from acquiescing to the client's cost preference.
Engineer A is constrained by the foundational engineering canon that public safety, health, and welfare must be held paramount over client cost preferences — prohibiting Engineer A from proceeding with or endorsing a design standard that Engineer A's own technical analysis has determined creates material public safety risk to future residents, even when the client explicitly refuses to fund the recommended protective standard on cost grounds.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I — public safety paramount canon
Throughout the engagement and following Client A's refusal
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Storm Surge
Engineer A must possess the capability to recognize that professional obligations to public health, safety, and welfare — specifically the safety of future residents from storm surge risk — must override Client A's cost-driven preferences, and to correctly prioritize public welfare as paramount in the conflict between Client A's budget constraints and the identified storm surge safety risk.
Engineer A faces a direct conflict between Client A's cost-driven refusal and the public safety obligation to recommend the 100-year storm surge design elevation, requiring recognition that public welfare is paramount.
The obligation to not acquiesce to Client A's cost-driven refusal and to pursue escalation reflects the paramountcy of public welfare over client preferences
Engineer A Storm Surge Cost-Refusal Non-Acquiescence
Engineer A is obligated to possess and exercise the capability to refrain from acquiescing to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — maintaining the professional recommendation, formally documenting the refusal and its public safety implications, and pursuing graduated escalation rather than accepting the client's override.
Client A refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation due to increased cost, requiring Engineer A to exercise non-acquiescence capability and pursue appropriate escalation steps.
The case facts establish that Client A refused the 100-year storm surge recommendation on cost grounds, triggering Engineer A's obligation to not acquiesce — the capability is required to fulfill this obligation
Engineer A Storm Surge Post-Refusal Escalation Assessment
Engineer A must possess the capability to assess whether Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation — given the nature, probability, and severity of the identified risk to future residents and the public — requires escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities or local government officials, and to act on that assessment by making formal reports when the threshold is met.
Following Client A's cost-driven refusal of the 100-year storm surge recommendation, Engineer A must assess whether escalation to regulatory authorities or local officials is required given the public safety implications for future residents.
The case facts establish that Client A refused the safety recommendation, triggering the Post-Cost-Refusal Storm Surge Escalation Assessment Obligation and requiring Engineer A to assess and potentially execute escalation
Engineer A Technical Literature Currency Storm Surge Algorithm
Technical Literature Currency Maintenance Capability
Engineer A demonstrates the capability to actively monitor, retrieve, and incorporate newly published technical literature — including newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data — into ongoing professional coastal risk assessment practice.
Engineer A applied newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm to the coastal risk assessment, fulfilling the Newly Released Climate Algorithm Application Competence Obligation.
Application of newly released information and a recently developed algorithm to the coastal risk assessment, demonstrating currency with the latest technical methods
Engineer A Threatened Species Case (BER 07-6)
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering', 'firm_role': 'Principal', 'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 07-6'}
Principal in an environmental engineering firm who received a biologist's report that a condominium project could threaten a 'threatened' bird species in adjacent protected wetlands, and was found to have acted unethically by omitting this information from the written report submitted to a public authority.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer Client (BER 07-6)'}
{'type': 'receives_input_from', 'target': 'Environmental Biologist Specialist (BER 07-6)'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Public Authority Reviewing Development (BER 07-6)'}
Environmental Threat Reporting Design Engineer
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm
it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report
one of the engineering firm's biologists reported to Engineer A that, in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species
Engineer A Threatened Species Case BER 07-6 Faithful Agent Client Notification Capability
Threatened Species Environmental Risk Report Inclusion Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to advise the developer client that the biologist's threatened species findings would be included in the written report submitted to the public authority, fulfilling both the objective reporting obligation and the faithful agent obligation to keep the client informed of professional decisions affecting the client's development proposal.
BER Case 07-6: Principal in an environmental engineering firm who was required to include threatened species information in a public authority report and advise the developer client of that inclusion.
The BER's direction that Engineer A should have included the threatened species information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
Engineer A Threatened Species Case BER 07-6 Faithful Agent Client Notification of Inclusion
Engineer A's firm biologist reported threatened species risk; Engineer A was required to include this in the public authority report and to advise the client of its inclusion
Engineer A (threatened species case, BER 07-6)
Client Notification of Sustainability-Environmental Conflict Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to advise the developer client that the biologist's threatened species findings would be included in the written report submitted to the public authority, so that the client had advance notice of the inclusion and could make informed decisions about the project — consistent with the faithful agent duty and the public welfare paramount principle.
Before or upon submission of the written report to the public authority
Engineer A Threatened Species Case BER 07-6 Non-Endangered Threatened Species Disclosure
The bird species at issue was classified as 'threatened' rather than 'endangered'; Engineer A's omission reflected a failure to recognize that the disclosure obligation extends to threatened species
Non-Endangered Threatened Species Environmental Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that the professional duty to disclose environmental risks to the public authority extended to the bird species classified as 'threatened' — not only to species classified as 'endangered' — and to include the biologist's threatened species assessment in the public authority report without limiting disclosure to only the most severe classification of environmental harm.
The bird species was not an 'endangered species,' but it was considered a 'threatened species' by federal and state environmental regulators.
Before submission of the written report to the public authority
Engineer A Threatened Species Case BER 07-6 Report Inclusion Capability
Engineer A, as principal in an environmental engineering firm, possessed (and was obligated to exercise) the capability to recognize that a biologist's report of a threat to a 'threatened' bird species — even one not classified as 'endangered' — must be included in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion.
BER Case 07-6: Principal in an environmental engineering firm retained to analyze a property adjacent to wetlands for potential residential condominium development, who received a biologist's report about a threatened bird species.
Receipt of biologist's report about threatened bird species in connection with a condominium development adjacent to a protected wetlands area, and the BER's determination that omission of this information from the public authority report was unethical.
Engineer A Threatened Species Case BER 07-6 Threatened Species Report Inclusion
Engineer A's firm biologist reported that the condominium project could threaten a bird species classified as 'threatened'; Engineer A failed to include this information in the public authority report
Threatened Species Report Inclusion Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to include the biologist's report that the condominium project could threaten a bird species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state environmental regulators in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion.
Before submission of the written report to the public authority considering the developer's proposal
Engineer A Wetland Case BER 04-8 Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry Capability
Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry and Remediation Direction Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that a client's unauthorized wetland fill constituted a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws, to contact the client and inquire about the actions, to direct the client toward compliant remediation, and to escalate to regulatory authorities if the client failed to act.
BER Case 04-8: Environmental engineer who performed wetland delineation services and subsequently observed unauthorized fill on the client's wetland site.
Incidental observation of unauthorized fill material on wetlands during a drive-by of the client's property after completing wetland delineation services, followed by the BER-prescribed course of action of client contact, legal violation identification, remediation direction, and regulatory escalation.
Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken, and point out that the actions were a violation of the law—and that steps needed to be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities.
Engineer A Wetland Case BER 04-8 Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry and Remediation Direction
Engineer A observed that the client had installed fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits, variances, or permissions, in substantial violation of federal and state laws
Engineer A (wetland delineation, BER 04-8)
Environmental Law Violation Client Inquiry and Remediation Direction Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to contact the client, inquire about the unauthorized wetland fill actions, point out that the actions constituted a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws, and advise that steps must be taken to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from proper authorities, with all remedial actions in full compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations including review by a licensed engineer where appropriate; and if the client failed to take appropriate steps, to bring the matter to the attention of appropriate authorities.
Upon observing the unauthorized wetland fill, and continuing until client takes appropriate remedial action or Engineer A escalates to authorities
In this connection, the engineer should advise that the remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, which may include review by a licensed engineer.
Engineer A Wetland Case BER 04-8 Incidental Observation Capability
Incidental Observation Out-of-Scope Safety Deficiency Identification Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize, upon incidentally driving by the client's property after completing wetland delineation services, that the unauthorized fill material on the wetlands constituted a substantial violation of federal and state environmental laws triggering professional disclosure and notification obligations.
BER Case 04-8: Environmental engineer who incidentally observed unauthorized wetland fill after completing contracted wetland delineation services.
Incidental observation of unauthorized fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands during a drive-by of the client's property after completion of contracted wetland delineation services.
he drove by his client's property and noticed that the client had installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than half an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
The installation of the fill material was a substantial violation of the federal and state laws and regulations.
Engineer A Wetland Case BER 04-8 Incidental Observation Safety Disclosure
Engineer A drove past the former client's property after completing contracted wetland delineation services and observed unauthorized fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands
Incidental Observation Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to disclose the incidentally observed unauthorized wetland fill to the client and, if the client failed to take appropriate remedial action, to the appropriate authorities — recognizing that Engineer A's technical competence in wetland delineation activated the professional obligation to act upon the observed environmental law violation even though the observation occurred after the contracted scope of work was complete.
A few months after Engineer A completed the services, he drove by his client's property and noticed that the client had installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than half an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions.
Upon observing the unauthorized wetland fill while driving past the former client's property
Engineer A Wetland Delineation Case (BER 04-8)
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering, wetland delineation', 'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 04-8'}
Performed wetland delineation services for a client, subsequently discovered the client had illegally filled more than half an acre of wetlands without permits, and was obligated to confront the client and report to authorities if corrective action was not taken.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Wetland Site Client (BER 04-8)'}
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Appropriate Regulatory Authorities'}
Wetland Delineation Environmental Engineer
Engineer A, an environmental engineer, performed wetland delineation services on the client's wetland site.
Engineer A should contact the client, inquire about the actions the client had taken
he drove by his client's property and noticed that the client had installed a substantial amount of fill material
Engineer A Written Documentation Safety Recommendation Client Refusal Obligation
Client A refused to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation on cost grounds, requiring Engineer A to document the recommendation and refusal in writing.
Engineer A is obligated to document in writing the 100-year storm surge recommendation, its scientific and professional basis (including the specific data sources and algorithms applied), Client A's refusal to accept the recommendation, and Engineer A's professional objection — so that the record reflects Engineer A's compliance with the paramount public welfare obligation and preserves evidence of the engineer's professional judgment.
Engineer A Written Documentation Safety Recommendation Client Refusal Storm Surge
Engineer A must document the recommendation and the client's refusal in writing to create a professional record and to discharge the safety notification obligation
Engineer A is constrained to document in writing the 100-year storm surge recommendation, its scientific and professional basis, and Client A's refusal — prohibiting reliance on verbal communication alone as a complete discharge of the documentation obligation when the safety risk is of sufficient severity to warrant a documented record.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Verbal-Only Safety Notification Written Follow-Up Constraint; Coastal Risk Assessment Written Documentation of Safety Recommendation Obligation
Following Client A's refusal to adopt the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Engineer A's determination of 100-year storm surge standard before Client A's refusal to agree to the standard
Engineer A's withdrawal from project before contacting local government officials
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard — Client Refusal Context
NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional ethics consensus
Professional norms governing engineer obligations when client refuses safety recommendations in unregulated jurisdictions
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
Owner refuses to agree that the residential development project be built to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation
Engineer A following client refusal of safety recommendation
Governs Engineer A's obligations after the owner refuses to build to the recommended 100-year storm surge elevation, including whether Engineer A must withdraw, notify authorities, or take other protective action given the absence of a local building code.
Engineer Public Safety Escalation – Local Government Building Code Advocacy
NSPE Board of Ethical Review / Professional engineering community
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Escalation to Public Officials and Advocacy for Updated Building Codes
BER in identifying Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations and citizen-action options
Referenced as the basis for Engineer A's option to contact local government officials to advocate for updated region-wide building codes incorporating appropriate storm surge design standards across all jurisdictions in the affected geographical area
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard – Storm Surge Context
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Obligations When Client Refuses Safety-Protective Design Recommendation
Engineer Safety Recommendation Rejection Standard
If Client A refuses to agree with Engineer A's design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project. Engineer A should also consider contacting local government officials to advocate for the implementation of appropriate and updated region-wide building codes
BER in determining the appropriate course of action for Engineer A following client refusal
Applied to determine Engineer A's obligations when Client A refuses to accept the 100-year storm surge design standard, including the duty to continue advocacy, withdraw from the project if necessary, and escalate to local government officials
Environmental Biologist Specialist (BER 07-6)
{'specialty': 'Biology, environmental species assessment', 'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 07-6'}
A biologist employed by the environmental engineering firm who reported to Engineer A that the condominium project could threaten a bird species classified as 'threatened' by federal and state regulators, providing the specialist input that triggered Engineer A's reporting obligations.
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Engineer A Threatened Species Case (BER 07-6)'}
one of the engineering firm's biologists reported to Engineer A that, in his opinion, the condominium project could threaten a bird species that inhabited the adjacent protected wetlands area.
Environmental Damage Risk from Inadequate Storm Surge Standard
From Engineer A's identification of the environmental damage risk through adoption of an adequate design standard or project completion
a less stringent standard would place future residents, as well as the general public, at risk and have the potential to cause significant property and environmental damage
The land and environment surrounding the residential development project
Adoption of the 100-year storm surge elevation standard or completion of the project
Engineer A's determination that a less stringent storm surge standard could cause significant environmental damage
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Wetland Case BER 04-8
Unauthorized installation of fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits
Engineer A, having incidentally observed unauthorized wetland fill on a former client's property, was required to contact the client, advise of the legal violation, demand remediation, and report to authorities if the client failed to act
Discovery of a material environmental law violation by a former client creates a structured obligation: confront client, demand remediation through proper channels, and report to authorities if client fails to act
Environmental Law Violation Reporting Obligation
Environmental law violation reporting obligation supersedes any residual confidentiality or loyalty obligation to a former client when the violation is substantial and the client refuses to remediate
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice Invoked by Engineer A Wetland and Threatened Species Cases
Threatened bird species habitat in adjacent protected wetlands
Engineer A's obligations in both the wetland fill case and the threatened species case reflect the environmental stewardship principle — requiring engineers to consider and protect environmental resources, including wetlands and protected species habitats, that their professional engagements may affect
Environmental stewardship extends beyond the contracted scope of work to encompass discovered environmental violations and the obligation to include adverse environmental findings in regulatory submissions
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Environmental stewardship obligations supersede client preferences when the engineer discovers environmental law violations or must report adverse environmental findings to regulatory authorities
engineers play an essential role in society by taking steps and actions to ensure that products, systems, facilities, structures, and the land surrounding them are reasonably safe.
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Coastal Case
Client A's decision to reject the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Engineer A was required to continue pursuing discussions with Client A to advise of the danger to future residents and the general public, and the potential for significant property and environmental damage, before withdrawing from the project
The faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to persistently advise Client A of the risks before withdrawing, ensuring the client has the opportunity to reconsider with full knowledge of the consequences
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
Faithful agent notification obligation is discharged through persistent persuasion; when the client refuses, the public welfare obligation requires withdrawal
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk Invoked By Engineer A
Client autonomy over project cost decisions
Engineer A must advise Client A in writing that building the residential development below the 100-year storm surge elevation creates material public safety risks that could result in harm to future residents, project liability exposure, and potential regulatory consequences if building codes are subsequently adopted
In this context, the faithful agent obligation requires Engineer A to communicate the full scope of risks associated with Client A's cost-driven decision — including not only the immediate public safety risk but also the project viability and liability risks — in writing, so that Client A can make a fully informed decision
The faithful agent obligation encompasses the client's overall project welfare; Engineer A must communicate all material risks even when the client's immediate preference is to avoid hearing them
Future Residents and Public Coastal Safety Stakeholder
{'stakeholder_type': 'Future residents and general public', 'risk_exposure': 'Storm surge and sea level rise risk from residential development built below recommended design elevation', 'regulatory_context': 'No applicable building code provides baseline protection'}
Members of the public and future residents of the proposed coastal residential development who face public safety risks from storm surge events if the development is not built to the engineer-recommended 100-year projected storm surge elevation, establishing Engineer A's paramount public responsibility obligations.
{'type': 'public_safety_obligation_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment Engineer'}
Hydrodynamic Modeling and Coastal Risk Assessment Methodology
Unspecified research or standards body (newly released)
Hydrodynamic Modeling and Coastal Risk Assessment Methodology (including newly developed algorithm with historic weather data)
Engineer A in performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment
Technical basis for Engineer A's determination that the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation; grounds the professional recommendation in quantitative analysis of climate change and sea level rise risk.
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Wetland Case
Unauthorized wetland fill observed incidentally after completion of contracted services
Absolute Loyalty Prohibition to Former Clients
Engineer A, while driving past a former client's property after completing contracted wetland delineation services, observed unauthorized fill material on the wetlands and was obligated to disclose and act on that observation despite having no continuing contractual relationship with the client
An engineer's obligation to act on observations of material environmental law violations is not extinguished by the completion of the contracted engagement; incidental post-engagement observation of a client's illegal conduct triggers a disclosure and reporting obligation
Incidental Observation Disclosure Obligation
The severity of the environmental law violation and the public interest in wetland protection override any residual loyalty to a former client that might otherwise counsel non-involvement
{'authority': 'Building code adoption and implementation', 'geographic_scope': 'Regional jurisdictions near the residential development project'}
Local government officials with authority over regional building code adoption and implementation, identified as appropriate targets for Engineer A's advocacy regarding updated storm surge design standards applicable to the geographic area of the residential development project.
{'type': 'advocacy_target', 'target': 'Engineer A Present Case Coastal Risk Assessment'}
Moving Target Climate Baseline — Coastal Storm Surge
Ongoing — newly released information and algorithm have updated the applicable baseline
Based on newly released information as well as a recently developed algorithm that includes newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation.
The climate and weather data baseline applicable to the coastal residential development project
Stabilization of applicable climate baseline standards or adoption of new regulatory standards
Release of new information and development of a new algorithm incorporating newly identified historic weather data, changing the applicable storm surge projection baseline
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers – Section III.2.d (Environmental Protection)
Engineer A in determining professional obligations regarding environmental protection
Cited as placing additional responsibilities on engineers for the protection of the environment, grounding Engineer A's obligation to advocate for appropriate storm surge design standards
Engineer A in evaluating professional obligations following client refusal
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations when the client refuses to implement the recommended 100-year storm surge design elevation, including the fundamental canon to hold public safety paramount and obligations when client instructions conflict with public welfare.
Newly Released Climate Data Informing Safety Standard
From the release of new weather data and algorithms through Engineer A's application of that data to the project design standard
The technical basis for Engineer A's 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation
Adoption of the updated data as a stable design baseline or supersession by further updated data
Release of newly identified historic weather data and a recently developed algorithm that informed Engineer A's determination of the appropriate storm surge elevation
No Building Code Jurisdiction for Residential Development Project
Throughout the project design and construction period, until local government adopts updated region-wide building codes
The geographic jurisdiction in which the residential development project is located
Adoption of updated region-wide building codes by local government officials
Engineer A's determination that the project is located in a jurisdiction lacking applicable building codes mandating adequate storm surge elevation standards
No Building Code in Project Jurisdiction
Ongoing — no building code currently exists in the project area
The geographic area of the proposed coastal residential development
Adoption of a building code by the jurisdiction, or project relocation
Project sited in a jurisdiction with no applicable building code
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked By Engineer A
100-year storm surge elevation design standard
Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client A's cost-driven refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, because Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that lower design standards create material public safety risks to future residents
In this context, Client A's refusal to build to the recommended standard due to cost is a client directive that would require Engineer A to certify or proceed with a design standard that Engineer A's professional judgment indicates is inadequate for public safety; Engineer A must refuse to acquiesce to this directive
The engineer's professional authority over safety determinations is not subject to client cost override; Engineer A must maintain the 100-year recommendation and refuse to certify an inadequate standard
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked by Engineer A
Client A's request to reduce design standard to lower storm surge elevation
Engineer A refused to adopt a less stringent storm surge elevation standard at Client A's direction, maintaining the professionally determined 100-year standard despite the client's cost-reduction motivation
Client cost-reduction directives do not authorize engineers to adopt design standards that the engineer has professionally determined to be inadequate to protect public safety
The engineer's professional determination of an adequate safety standard cannot be overridden by client cost preferences when the result would place the public at material risk
Objective Completeness in Public Authority Reports Invoked by Engineer A BER 07-6
Biologist's finding about threatened bird species in adjacent protected wetlands
Written report submitted to public authority considering developer's residential condominium proposal
Engineer A was required to include the biologist's report about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, even though the client may have preferred its omission, because the public authority needed that information to exercise informed regulatory judgment
Engineers preparing reports for public regulatory authorities must include all relevant and pertinent information — including adverse findings — so that the authority can make genuinely informed decisions; client preference for omission does not override this obligation
Informed Decision-Making Enablement Obligation
The public authority's need for complete information to exercise informed regulatory judgment supersedes the client's preference to omit adverse findings from the regulatory submission
it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information
Objectivity Principle Invoked by Engineer A BER 07-6
Professional report submitted to public authority on residential condominium development proposal
Engineer A was required to be objective and truthful in the professional report submitted to the public authority, including the biologist's finding about the threatened bird species regardless of the client's commercial interests in the development
Objectivity requires inclusion of all relevant technical findings in professional reports, even when those findings are adverse to the client's interests and the client would prefer their omission
Objectivity obligation prevails over client preference for selective reporting when the report is submitted to a public regulatory authority
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked By Engineer A
Following Client A's refusal to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, Engineer A must assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the public safety risk triggers an obligation to escalate concerns to local government officials or other appropriate authorities, rather than treating Client A's rejection as a complete discharge of Engineer A's professional obligation
In this context, Client A's refusal to address the identified storm surge risk does not discharge Engineer A's professional obligation; Engineer A must assess whether escalation to local government officials — who have authority to adopt building codes — is warranted given the severity of the public safety risk
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
The public welfare obligation runs independently of the client relationship; Engineer A's professional obligation to protect future residents requires assessment of whether escalation beyond the client is necessary
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by Engineer A
Client A's refusal to accept 100-year storm surge elevation standard
Decision whether to contact local government officials after withdrawal
After Client A refused to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard, Engineer A was required to assess whether withdrawal alone was sufficient or whether further escalation — including advocacy with local government officials for updated building codes — was also required
Client refusal of a safety recommendation triggers an obligation to assess whether withdrawal is sufficient or whether escalation to regulatory or governmental authorities is also required given the nature and breadth of the risk
The breadth of the coastal storm surge risk — affecting not just the immediate development but the broader geographic area — supports escalation to local government officials beyond mere withdrawal
Post-Client-Refusal Regional Code Advocacy Obligation
From the point at which Engineer A determines withdrawal is appropriate through completion of advocacy engagement with local government officials
General public in the broader geographic region
Post-Client-Refusal Governmental Code Advocacy Obligation State
Engineer A's professional obligation to engage local government following Client A's refusal of the safety standard recommendation
Engineer A's completion of advocacy engagement with local government officials or adoption of updated regional building codes
Client A's refusal of the 100-year storm surge standard combined with the absence of applicable building codes mandating that standard in the jurisdiction
Present Findings to Client (Action 4) → Client Refuses Higher Standard (Event 4)
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A
Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified storm surge risk to Client A, to local government officials with building code authority, and potentially to future residents or the public, without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize
In this context, proactive risk disclosure requires Engineer A to communicate the storm surge risk not only to Client A but also to appropriate regulatory and governmental authorities, because the risk affects third parties — future residents — who have no direct voice in the design standard decision
The proactive disclosure obligation runs to affected third parties and regulatory authorities, not merely to the client; the absence of a formal request for disclosure does not discharge the obligation when material public safety risks are identified
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A
Engineer A applied specialized technical competence in hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment — including newly released data and a recently developed algorithm — to identify and quantify the public safety risk from storm surge, and acted on that assessment by recommending the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
In this context, professional competence requires Engineer A to apply the most current available technical tools and data to the risk assessment, to quantify the risk with sufficient specificity to support a design standard recommendation, and to communicate that recommendation clearly to the client
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
Professional competence in risk assessment is not subject to client cost override; Engineer A must apply full technical competence to the risk assessment regardless of the cost implications of the resulting recommendation
Project Withdrawal as Ethical Recourse Invoked by Engineer A
Engineer A was required to withdraw from the coastal development project if Client A refused to accept the 100-year storm surge elevation standard, rather than proceeding under a standard the engineer had determined to be inadequate to protect public safety
When a client insists on proceeding under a design standard the engineer has determined to be inadequate to protect public safety, withdrawal is the required ethical recourse after persuasion has been exhausted
The obligation to protect public safety from foreseeable storm surge harm requires withdrawal when the client refuses to accept the professionally determined adequate standard
Proportional Escalation Obligation Invoked by Engineer A Coastal Case
The breadth of the coastal storm surge risk — affecting not just the immediate development but all jurisdictions in the broader geographical area — justified an escalation response that extended beyond withdrawal from the project to advocacy with local government officials for region-wide building code updates
When the identified risk is not limited to a single project but extends to a broader geographic area and affects the general public, the proportional escalation response includes advocacy for systemic regulatory remedies such as updated building codes
Proportional Escalation Obligation Calibrated to Imminence and Breadth of Risk
The breadth and significance of the coastal storm surge risk supports region-wide advocacy as a proportional escalation response beyond mere project withdrawal
Public Safety at Risk from Inadequate Storm Surge Design Standard
From Engineer A's determination that the lower standard is inadequate through either adoption of the recommended standard or completion of construction to an inadequate standard
Future residents and general public exposed to foreseeable storm surge risk if the lower design standard is adopted
Adoption of the 100-year storm surge elevation standard or Engineer A's withdrawal and governmental code reform
Engineer A's technically grounded determination that a less stringent standard than 100-year storm surge elevation would place future residents and the general public at risk
Public Safety at Risk — Coastal Residential Development Storm Surge
From Engineer A's formation of the 100-year projection recommendation and client refusal, ongoing until resolved
Future residents and the general public in the coastal area of the proposed residential development
Project redesigned to adequate safety standard, project abandoned, or risk formally disclosed and addressed by appropriate authorities
Engineer A's professional determination that the project poses public safety risks at lower storm surge projections, combined with client refusal to build to the recommended standard
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment
Coastal residential development project design standard recommendation
Engineer A determined that the residential development project must be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation to protect the public safety of future residents, even though Client A refused to agree due to increased cost
In this context, public welfare requires Engineer A to maintain the 100-year storm surge elevation recommendation against client cost objections, because future residents who will occupy the development have no voice in the design standard decision and are entirely dependent on Engineer A's professional judgment for their safety
Public welfare obligation overrides client cost preference; Engineer A must not subordinate the safety standard to Client A's economic interests
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment
100-year storm surge elevation requirement
Coastal residential development design standard determination
Engineer A determined that a 100-year projected storm surge elevation standard was necessary to protect future residents and the general public, and refused to subordinate that determination to Client A's cost-reduction preferences
Public welfare requires that engineering design standards be set at levels that genuinely protect future occupants and the public from foreseeable harm, even when the client's cost preferences would result in a lower standard
Public welfare obligation prevails over client cost preferences when the safety risk to future residents and the general public is substantial
Engineer A's determination is based upon a reasonable and good faith belief that a less stringent standard would place future residents, as well as the general public, at risk and have the potential to cause significant property and environmental damage
Qualitative Risk Assessment — Storm Surge Public Safety
Engineer A based on newly released data and algorithm
Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment of storm surge hazard to residential development
Engineer A believes the residential development project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation
Engineer A in advising Client A on storm surge risk
Engineer A's professional assessment of the likelihood and magnitude of harm to future residents from storm surge at various design elevations, used to ground the recommendation for the 100-year design standard and to communicate risk to the client.
What are Engineer A’s obligations under the circumstances?
Does Engineer A have an obligation to notify local government officials or other public authorities about the identified storm surge risk even after withdrawing from the project, given that no building code exists in the jurisdiction and future residents remain exposed to foreseeable danger?
Is Engineer A obligated to document in writing the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's refusal, and if so, to whom must that documentation be provided and retained?
To what extent does the absence of a local building code expand Engineer A's independent professional duty to self-impose a safety standard, and does that duty persist regardless of client cost objections?
Does Engineer A bear any residual ethical responsibility for harm to future residents if Engineer A withdraws from the project but takes no further action to alert public authorities or advocate for protective building codes in the jurisdiction?
Does the Faithful Agent Notification Obligation — which requires Engineer A to serve Client A's interests and notify the client of project risks — conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle when serving the client's cost preference would expose future residents to foreseeable storm surge danger?
Does the Climate Change as Moving Target principle — which acknowledges inherent uncertainty in projecting future storm surge baselines — conflict with the Professional Competence in Risk Assessment principle, which demands that Engineer A render a definitive and defensible safety recommendation rather than hedging on the basis of evolving data?
Does the Proportional Escalation Obligation — which calls for graduated steps before withdrawal — conflict with the Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis principle, which may demand immediate refusal to proceed once Client A explicitly rejects the safety-critical 100-year storm surge standard?
Does the Building Code Advocacy Engineer Principle — which encourages Engineer A to engage local government to establish protective standards — conflict with the Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure principle in terms of timing and scope, specifically whether Engineer A's disclosure duty to public authorities is triggered before or only after withdrawal from the project?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount create an absolute obligation to withdraw from the project once Client A refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard, regardless of whether withdrawal actually prevents harm to future residents?
From a consequentialist perspective, does Engineer A's withdrawal from the project after Client A's refusal actually produce better outcomes for future residents and the public than remaining engaged and attempting to influence the project design from within, given that another engineer with fewer safety scruples might simply replace Engineer A?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer A demonstrate genuine professional integrity by relying on newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm to recommend the 100-year storm surge standard, or does epistemic humility require Engineer A to qualify that recommendation more explicitly given the inherent uncertainty in climate projections?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to Client A — which includes notifying the client when a project is unlikely to succeed — conflict with the duty to hold public safety paramount, and if so, which duty takes lexical priority when Client A's cost-driven refusal creates foreseeable risk to future residents?
If the geographic area had an existing building code that mandated only a lower storm surge elevation standard, would Engineer A still be obligated to recommend the 100-year projection, and would the ethical calculus for withdrawal change given that compliance with the code would provide a legal safe harbor even if Engineer A believed it was technically insufficient?
Would the outcome for future residents have been materially different if Engineer A had proactively contacted local government officials to advocate for a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard before presenting findings to Client A, rather than treating that advocacy as a post-withdrawal obligation?
If Engineer A had provided written documentation of the safety recommendation and Client A's refusal at the outset of the disagreement rather than only during ongoing discussions, would that written record have changed Client A's willingness to accept the 100-year storm surge standard, or would it have served primarily to protect Engineer A's professional standing while leaving the underlying public safety risk unresolved?
If the newly released algorithm and historic weather data had not been available and Engineer A had relied only on previously established climate models, would the ethical obligation to recommend the 100-year storm surge standard have been weaker, and does the availability of superior technical tools create a heightened professional duty that did not previously exist?
Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked by Engineer A Coastal Case
Regional building code adequacy for coastal storm surge risk
Engineer A identified that existing regional building codes were inadequate relative to current climate science and storm surge risk, and was advised to advocate with local government officials for adoption of updated region-wide building codes
When regulatory standards have not been updated to reflect current scientific understanding of coastal storm surge risk, engineers must proactively disclose the gap and advocate for code updates with appropriate authorities
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
The obligation to disclose regulatory gaps and advocate for updated standards extends beyond the immediate client engagement to engagement with local government officials
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A
Absence of building code in geographic area
Engineer A must recognize and disclose that the geographic area has no applicable building code, that this regulatory gap means no minimum standard protects future residents, and that Engineer A's professional judgment must fill that gap by recommending the 100-year storm surge elevation standard
In this context, the absence of any building code in the geographic area creates a regulatory gap that Engineer A must proactively disclose to Client A and, if Client A refuses to address the risk, to local government officials who have authority to adopt protective building codes
The regulatory gap disclosure obligation runs to the public and to appropriate authorities, not merely to the client; Engineer A must communicate the gap and its safety implications beyond the client relationship when the client refuses to address the identified risk
Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — No Code Jurisdiction
Ongoing — no building code exists and newly released climate data has not been incorporated into any applicable regulatory standard
The absence of any building code in the project jurisdiction, compounded by the inadequacy of any existing standards to reflect current climate science regarding storm surge
Jurisdiction adopts a building code incorporating current climate science, or project is relocated
Project sited in a no-code jurisdiction while newly released climate data indicates elevated storm surge risk
{'violation': 'Illegal fill of wetlands without permits', 'case_reference': 'BER Case No. 04-8'}
Client whose wetland site was delineated by Engineer A and who subsequently installed illegal fill material on more than half an acre of wetlands without permits, variances, or permissions, in violation of federal and state law.
{'type': 'service_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer A Wetland Delineation Case (BER 04-8)'}
the client had installed a substantial amount of fill material on more than half an acre across a portion of the wetlands without any permits, variances, or permissions
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification Invoked By Engineer A
100-year storm surge elevation recommendation
Engineer A must document in writing the recommendation to build to the 100-year storm surge elevation, the scientific and professional basis for that recommendation, and Client A's refusal to comply, so as to create a clear and unambiguous record of Engineer A's professional judgment and the client's contrary decision
In this context, the written documentation obligation requires Engineer A to create a formal written record of the safety recommendation and the client's refusal, both to preserve Engineer A's ability to demonstrate discharge of professional obligation and to create an actionable record that could support subsequent escalation if warranted
Written Documentation Requirement for Safety Notification
The written documentation obligation is not contingent on client agreement; Engineer A must document the recommendation and the client's refusal regardless of Client A's preferences
biologist's report to Engineer A (BER 07-6) before submission of written report to public authority (BER 07-6)
completion of wetland delineation services (BER 04-8) before discovery of unauthorized fill material (BER 04-8)
continued discussions with Client A before Engineer A's withdrawal from project
installation of fill material by client (BER 04-8) before Engineer A's discovery of fill material (BER 04-8)
release of new information and development of new algorithm before Engineer A's determination of 100-year storm surge standard