Accept Limited Scope Engagement (Action 1) → Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2)
Accept Tidal Crossing Engagement (Action 1) → Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Identified (Event 1)
Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3) → Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4)
BER Case 07-6 - Threatened Species Disclosure in Development Report
In BER Case 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.
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.
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
BER in reasoning about Engineer A's obligation to disclose potential flooding impacts
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities, including information about environmental threats not legally required to be disclosed, grounding the obligation of objective and truthful reporting
BER Case 07-6 Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant Upstream Flood Risk
Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Capability
In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A as an environmental engineering consultant possessed the capability to identify upstream third-party flood risk associated with a proposed development project adjacent to a water body, providing precedent for the obligation to assess and disclose such risks.
BER Case 07.6 precedent involving environmental engineering consultant identifying third-party environmental risks for a developer client.
Engineer A's role as a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a water body, identifying environmental risks to third parties.
In the referenced BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a water body.
BER Case 07.6 Engineer A Environmental Engineering Consultant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer / Firm Principal', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering and ecological impact analysis', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
In the referenced BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for residential condominium development. Engineer A was found to have an ethical obligation to include information about a threatened bird species in a written report submitted to a public authority, even though the client had not requested such disclosure.
{'type': 'reports_to', 'target': 'Public Authority (BER 07.6)'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer Client (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
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 Case 18-9 - Coastal Risk Assessment and Storm Surge Design Standard
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development.
Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks even at lower projections.
The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
BER in reasoning about Engineer A's obligations when Client B resists detailed climate impact evaluation
Cited as precedent establishing that engineers must advocate for protective design standards based on public safety risks even when owners refuse, and must withdraw from projects when agreement on adequate safety standards cannot be reached, directly analogous to Engineer A's situation regarding climate-adjusted flood risk
BER Case 18-9 Engineer A Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 18-9'}
In the referenced BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development. Based on newly identified historic weather data, Engineer A advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation. When the owner refused, the BER concluded Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner and, failing that, withdraw from the project.
{'type': 'advocates_for', 'target': 'Future Residents and Public'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Developer Owner (BER 18-9)'}
Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer
Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development
Engineer A advocated that the project be designed for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation due to public safety risks
Engineer A should withdraw from the project
The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
BER Case 18-9 Engineer A Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Tidal Hydraulic Analysis
Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Capability
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A possessed the capability to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, including assessment of sea level rise effects and tidal dynamics relevant to coastal infrastructure.
BER Case 18-9 precedent involving climate-aware coastal infrastructure engineering and hydrodynamic modeling.
Engineer A's work performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development in BER Case 18-9.
In the referenced BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development.
BER Case 18-9 before current case analysis
CausalLink_Accept Limited Scope Engagemen
CausalLink_Accept Tidal Crossing Engageme
CausalLink_Client Directs Analysis Deferr
CausalLink_Client Directs Analysis Omissi
CausalLink_Engage Client on Risk Disclosu
CausalLink_Propose Regulatory Disclosure
CausalLink_Propose Specialized Flood Anal
CausalLink_Propose Specialized Hydraulic
CausalLink_Render Independent Flood Risk
CausalLink_Submit Concerns to Regulators
Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Client B Project
Active from Client B's refusal to authorize detailed evaluation; persists until client reversal or Engineer A's withdrawal
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts
Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis State
Client B's direction to proceed without conducting the detailed climate and hydraulic impact analysis recommended by Engineer A
Client B authorizing the evaluation, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
Client B's refusal to authorize the detailed, complex evaluation of future climate conditions and their impact on third-party properties
Client-Directed Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis — Upstream Flood Study
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis; persists unless regulatory authorities demand the study or Engineer A refuses to continue
Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities.
Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
Regulatory authority request for the analysis, Client B reversing the direction, or Engineer A declining to proceed without the analysis
Client B's instruction to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until requested by applicable regulatory authorities
Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint - Engineer A Client B
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized analysis, creating a constraint on Engineer A's ability to fully characterize the upstream flood risk while simultaneously triggering disclosure and documentation obligations.
Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral Constraint
Engineer A is constrained by Client B's explicit directive to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, which limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the upstream flood risk but does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the unquantified risk, document the client's override, and evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure is warranted without client authorization.
Client B's directive; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9
From Client B's directive forward through the design and permitting phase
Client-Directed Third-Party Risk Analysis Deferral — Client B Refusal of Specialized Hydraulic Study
Client B has explicitly directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis recommended by Engineer A. This creates a constraint on Engineer A's ability to fully characterize the risk, but does not eliminate the disclosure obligation.
Client B's direction to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the upstream flood risk but does not relieve Engineer A of the obligation to disclose the unquantified risk, document Client B's override directive in writing, and evaluate whether the unquantified risk warrants proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities or the twenty upstream homeowners without Client B's authorization.
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
From Client B's refusal of the specialized analysis through project resolution
{'project_type': 'Healthcare facility development', 'decision': 'Directed engineer to proceed without costly specialized analysis', 'condition_for_analysis': 'Only if requested by applicable regulatory authorities'}
Private developer proposing a healthcare facility requiring tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade; directed Engineer A to forgo recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities.
{'type': 'affected_by_obligations_of', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
Client B directs Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
Client B Cost-Directing Developer Client
{'project_type': 'Health care facility development', 'cost_stance': 'Directs engineer to omit costly specialized analysis unless regulators require it', 'regulatory_context': 'Subject to local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design standard'}
Developer proposing a health care facility requiring a significant access road upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh; directs Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis on cost grounds unless required by regulatory authorities, creating a conflict between client cost-minimization authority and the engineer's public safety obligations.
{'type': 'directs_scope_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
Client B Deferral of Third-Party Risk Analysis
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis until analysis is authorized, required by regulators, or Engineer A disassociates
Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the recommended hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory authority requiring it, Engineer A disassociating, or project abandonment
Client B's explicit direction to Engineer A to proceed without the costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis unless and until required by regulatory authorities
{'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project_type': 'Residential development in coastal/flood-risk area'}
Developer client who retained Engineer A for hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, refused to agree that 100-year storm surge protection was required or appropriate, and declined to authorize detailed evaluation or disclosure of potential flooding impacts, triggering Engineer A's obligation to propose regulatory reporting or withdraw.
{'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Coastal Risk Assessment'}
{'type': 'regulatory_subject', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action
Client B Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
{'entity_type': 'Private development client', 'decision_authority': 'Project scope and evaluation authorization', 'ethical_position': 'Refuses to authorize detailed safety evaluation or disclosure'}
Client B is the development client who commissioned Engineer A's services and who, upon being advised of potential flooding impacts requiring detailed climate-change-informed evaluation, remains unconvinced of the need for such evaluation or disclosure, triggering Engineer A's escalating obligations including potential withdrawal.
{'type': 'refuses_recommendation_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer'}
{'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer'}
Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern in an engineering report
Client B Refusal of Climate Evaluation and Disclosure
From Client B's refusal of Engineer A's proposed evaluation and disclosure, through either Client B's reversal or Engineer A's withdrawal
Client B's refusal to authorize detailed climate impact evaluation or disclosure of potential flooding impacts to regulatory agencies and the public
Either Client B's agreement to evaluation or disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public
Client B's explicit refusal to agree to detailed evaluation of future climate conditions or disclosure of potential flooding impacts
Client B's directive to skip the analysis before Engineer A's ethical obligation to engage Client B in discussions
Client B's refusal to agree on design standard (BER Case 18-9) before Engineer A's withdrawal from project (BER Case 18-9)
Client Budget Resource Constraint - Specialized Hydraulic Analysis
Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities, citing the cost of the analysis.
Engineer A is constrained by Client B's unwillingness to fund the complex and costly specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis proposed by Engineer A, which limits Engineer A's ability to quantify the foreseeable upstream flood risk with the precision that would be achievable through the specialized analysis.
Client B's directive to proceed without the costly analysis; resource constraints on project scope
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4) + Third Party Risk Unmitigated (Event 4) → Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
Client Directs Analysis Deferral (Action 4) → Analysis Deferral Imposed (Event 3)
Client Directs Analysis Omission (Action 4) → Analysis Omission Directed (Event 4) → Engineer-Client Impasse Reached (Event 5)
Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Welfare Invoked Against Client B Cost Directives
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis
Engineer A must serve Client B's interests faithfully — including respecting cost management concerns and contractual scope — but only within the bounds of the public welfare obligation, which requires that Engineer A not subordinate the upstream community's flood safety to Client B's financial preferences
Client loyalty is a genuine and weighty obligation, but it is bounded by the primacy of public welfare; Engineer A's graduated escalation sequence reflects the attempt to serve both obligations before the conflict becomes irresolvable
Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
Client loyalty yields to public welfare when the client's cost management directives would result in suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties
Client Loyalty Invoked By Client B Cost Management Directive
Specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis decision
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities, invoking the client's legitimate authority to direct project scope and cost management within the bounds of professional ethics
In this context, client loyalty creates a legitimate tension with Engineer A's public welfare and proactive risk disclosure obligations; the client's cost management directive is a legitimate exercise of client authority that Engineer A must respect within the bounds of professional ethics, but that authority does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis
Client loyalty is overridden by public welfare paramount when the client's directive would result in the suppression of safety-relevant analysis affecting identifiable third parties; Engineer A must advise Client B of this limit and refuse to acquiesce in the directive
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B
Client Loyalty Obligation of Engineer A to Client B
Engineer A's consulting engagement with Client B
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
Engineer A has a loyalty obligation to Client B as the developer commissioning the roadway design, requiring diligent execution of the design and permitting scope and respect for Client B's legitimate business decisions — but this loyalty is bounded by Engineer A's independent professional ethics obligations.
In this context, loyalty to Client B is a genuine competing obligation that must be weighed against public welfare and professional ethics obligations — it is not merely a pretext for suppressing safety analysis.
Engineer A Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh.
Client loyalty is overridden when the client's directive would suppress safety-critical analysis and leave twenty upstream homes uninformed of material flood risk.
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority — Engineer A Upstream Homeowner Protection
Engineer A faces a direct conflict between Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis (client loyalty) and the obligation to protect twenty upstream homeowners from foreseeable flood damage (public safety). The constraint establishes that public safety takes precedence.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
When Engineer A's obligation to serve Client B's project interests conflicts with the obligation to protect the twenty upstream homeowners from foreseeable flood damage, the public safety obligation takes precedence, constraining Engineer A from fulfilling Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis when doing so would compromise the welfare of the upstream homeowners.
Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
Throughout the tidal crossing project, from identification of the upstream flood risk through project resolution
Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Homes
Engineer A faces a direct conflict between Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis and the professional obligation to protect the public safety of upstream homeowners who face foreseeable flood damage from the tidal crossing upgrade.
Engineer A is constrained by the priority hierarchy establishing that when the faithful agent obligation to Client B conflicts with the obligation to protect the public safety of approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing foreseeable flood damage, the public safety obligation takes precedence — prohibiting Engineer A from fulfilling Client B's directive to forgo analysis and disclosure in a manner that would compromise the welfare of the upstream residential community.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case.
Throughout the design and permitting phase, particularly following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
Client Non-Compliance Insistence — Deferral of Safety Analysis
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis; ongoing
Client B's insistence on proceeding without the risk analysis Engineer A has identified as professionally warranted
Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory demand for the study, or Engineer A withdrawing
Client B directing Engineer A to forgo the specialized subconsultant analysis to control costs
Client Override Written Documentation Constraint - Engineer A Client B Hydraulic Analysis Deferral
Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis, creating an obligation to document the override directive and Engineer A's professional objection in writing.
Client Override of Safety Analysis Written Documentation Obligation
Engineer A is constrained to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, including Engineer A's professional objection to that directive and the foreseeable risks of proceeding without the analysis — prohibiting Engineer A from treating Client B's oral directive as a sufficient basis for proceeding without a written record of the override and Engineer A's professional position.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional documentation standards; BER Case 18-9
Immediately following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
Client Refusal of Safety Evaluation — Client B Coastal Project
Activated when Client B refuses Engineer A's recommendation for detailed evaluation; persists unless Client B agrees or Engineer A withdraws
Client Authority Override of Safety Recommendation State
Client B's refusal to authorize or agree to the detailed climate and hydraulic evaluation recommended by Engineer A
Client B agreeing to evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
In BER Case 18-9, the Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate
Client B's refusal to accept that detailed climate evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts is required or appropriate
Client Relationship - Engineer A and Client B
From engagement commencement through project completion or disassociation
Engineer A's consulting engagement with Client B for design and local permitting of the roadway and tidal crossing upgrade
Project completion, contract termination, or Engineer A's disassociation
Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity.
Client B retaining Engineer A as consulting engineer for the health care facility access road and tidal crossing upgrade project
Client Risk Consequence Communication — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing Cost-Risk Disclosure
Client B has refused the specialized analysis on cost grounds. Engineer A's engagement with Client B must include communication of the consequences to Client B — not just to the public — of proceeding without the analysis, to ensure Client B has complete information for the decision.
Client Risk Consequence Communication Constraint
Engineer A must communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis but also the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating or disclosing the potential impacts — including legal, financial, and reputational consequences — as a component of the graduated client engagement sequence.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis — current case
During the initial client engagement phase of the graduated escalation sequence
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Regulatory Floor
The applicable local development regulation specifies a 25-year fresh-water storm event assuming weather conditions consistent with historical data. National design codes have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise. Engineer A's professional judgment, informed by transportation agency conference guidance, identifies this gap.
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from treating compliance with the local 25-year storm standard — which has not been updated to reflect sea level rise, altered precipitation intensities, or shifting storm recurrence intervals — as a complete discharge of professional obligations when Engineer A has affirmative knowledge that the regulatory standard is climatically inadequate.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Local Development Regulation (25-year storm); National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure
The local development regulations applicable to the project specify that the access road and tidal crossing upgrade be designed for a 25-year fresh-water storm event, assuming weather conditions consistent with historical data.
Design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
National design codes and standards applicable to the hydraulic design of the tidal crossing have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise, changes in precipitation intensity, or changes in storm recurrence intervals.
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard - Moving Target Recognition
Professional engineering community and emerging practice norms
Emerging Professional Norms for Climate-Adjusted Engineering Design
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard
For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data.
Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
Engineer A in evaluating whether detailed climate impact modeling is required for the proposed development
Establishes that engineers must treat climate and weather patterns as a 'moving target' rather than fixed historical baselines, requiring consideration of future climate change effects in engineering planning and design to protect long-term public health, safety, and welfare
Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Engineer A Coastal Project
Activated once Engineer A forms the judgment that significant flooding risk to other properties is reasonably likely; persists until client agrees to evaluation/disclosure or Engineer A withdraws
Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant
Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation State
Engineer A's professional judgment regarding the need for detailed future-condition climate and hydraulic evaluation
Client B agreeing to detailed evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
Engineer A's professional assessment that the project poses sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
Climate-Informed Design Obligation Activation — Tidal Crossing Upgrade
From Engineer A's formation of professional judgment through resolution (analysis conducted, client informed, or Engineer A withdraws)
Engineer A's professional judgment regarding the inadequacy of regulatory requirements for the tidal crossing project
Client B authorizing the specialized analysis, Engineer A disclosing risks to regulatory authorities, or Engineer A withdrawing from the project
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings.
Engineer A's determination, based on conference-presented hydraulic evaluation procedures, that regulatory compliance alone is insufficient to protect upstream homeowners under projected climate conditions
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Invoked By Engineer A
Sea level rise and precipitation change projections
Tidal crossing bridge replacement design
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, concluding that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabitability by a decade or more — a conclusion that regulatory compliance alone would not have generated
In this context, the climate-informed design standard requires Engineer A to recommend specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis that accounts for sea level rise and updated precipitation data, even though the regulatory minimum does not require such analysis
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard
it is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
The climate-informed design standard requires Engineer A to recommend analysis beyond the regulatory minimum when professional judgment indicates that the regulatory standard is inadequate to capture foreseeable future risks
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by BER Case 18-9 Precedent
Coastal residential development hydrodynamic modeling
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment and advocated for design to the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation based on updated historic weather data — establishing the precedent that engineers designing climate-sensitive infrastructure must incorporate current climate projections even when owners resist.
In the BER Case 18-9 context, the climate-informed design standard required Engineer A to advocate for a design standard based on updated climate projections rather than accepting the owner's position that lower projections were adequate.
Climate-informed design standard overrides owner preference for lower design standard; Engineer A must advocate for updated standard and withdraw if owner refuses.
The Owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate.
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked by Engineer A for Tidal Crossing
Proposed specialized hydrologic hydraulic subconsultant analysis
Engineer A proposes specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis to predict the extent to which sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to upstream homes — going beyond the 25-year storm regulatory minimum because professional judgment indicates the regulatory standard is inadequate.
In this coastal hydraulic context, the principle requires Engineer A to incorporate sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals into the project assessment even though the regulatory standard does not yet require it.
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges.
The principle establishes that regulatory compliance is insufficient when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material climate-driven risk beyond the regulatory standard.
Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data.
Climate-Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Invoked for Tidal Crossing
Flood risk assessment for upstream neighborhood
Engineer A must incorporate current scientific understanding of climate change — including updated precipitation data and sea level rise projections — into the tidal crossing bridge replacement design assessment, even where applicable regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require such incorporation
The obligation to design to current climate science rather than outdated regulatory baselines is triggered when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that failure to do so may result in material harm to public safety or property
Regulatory compliance based on outdated historical climate data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation when current climate science indicates materially different future conditions
The BER believes that Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
Engineering profession (collective professional norm)
Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic and Coastal Design Standard
Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future with respect to potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, where such impacts are reasonably likely and significant.
Engineer A in evaluating whether detailed hydrologic and coastal modeling is required for the project
Frames the professional obligation to incorporate climate change projections — including shifting weather patterns and storm recurrence intervals — into engineering planning and design rather than relying solely on historical climate data
Climate Baseline Moving Target Condition
Ongoing — persists across all climate-sensitive engineering projects in the current era of changing climate and weather patterns
All engineers engaged in climate-sensitive design
Public relying on climate-resilient infrastructure
For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
The general professional engineering context for climate-sensitive design, and specifically Engineer A's project context
Not terminated in the current case — persists as a background condition affecting all climate-sensitive engineering judgment
In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change
This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target'
Recognition that historical climate and weather datasets are being updated to reflect changing patterns, such that they can no longer be treated as fixed proxies for future conditions
Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked by Engineer A in Tidal Crossing Design
Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade design
Engineer A recognizes that the local regulatory standard (25-year storm based on historical data) does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals, and that designing to that static standard may cause upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise.
In this context, treating climate as a moving target requires Engineer A to look beyond the 25-year storm regulatory standard to current hydraulic evaluation procedures that account for sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns.
Climate Change as Moving Target in Engineering Design
Engineer A's professional judgment that the regulatory standard is inadequate creates an obligation to propose supplemental analysis, even against client cost preferences.
The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.
Climate Change as Moving Target Invoked for Tidal Crossing Design
Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for tidal crossing
Engineer A must treat future climate and weather conditions as a moving target rather than a fixed historical baseline when assessing flood risks to upstream properties from the proposed tidal crossing infrastructure upgrade
The obligation to treat climate as a moving target requires Engineer A to incorporate current climate projections rather than relying on historical data that may no longer reliably predict future flood conditions
The moving target nature of climate data means regulatory compliance based on historical data is insufficient to discharge the public welfare obligation; current scientific understanding must inform the assessment
For more than a century, engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data. In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change. This necessitates that climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target.'
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Hydraulic Design
The local 25-year storm standard is based on historical weather data that does not reflect current climate science. Engineer A has professional knowledge from a transportation agency conference that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of upstream homes under future climate conditions.
Climate Moving Target Design Baseline Constraint
Engineer A is prohibited from treating historical climate and weather data as a fixed, reliable baseline for the tidal crossing hydraulic design, and must instead incorporate dynamic, forward-looking climate projections — including sea level rise and shifting storm recurrence intervals — into design evaluation.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Procedures
Design phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
Climate Regulatory Gap Constraint - Engineer A Tidal Crossing Project
Engineer A is designing a tidal crossing upgrade for Client B's healthcare facility access road, where local regulations require a 25-year storm standard based on historical data that does not account for sea level rise or climate change effects.
Engineer A is constrained by the fact that applicable local development regulations require only a 25-year fresh-water storm design standard based on historical data, which has not been updated to reflect sea level rise or climate-altered precipitation — establishing a regulatory floor that Engineer A must meet but that does not discharge the professional obligation to disclose the gap between the regulatory standard and current climate-informed professional judgment.
Local development regulations; NSPE Code of Ethics; Climate-Adjusted Hydraulic Design Standard professional norms
Throughout the design and permitting phase of the tidal crossing upgrade project
Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy (Applicable Jurisdiction)
Climate Resilience and Long-Term Sustainability Infrastructure Policy
Climate Resilience Infrastructure Policy
The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns, including effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change
Engineer A in evaluating scope of professional obligation
Provides normative grounding for Engineer A's professional obligation to consider climate change effects (sea level rise, altered precipitation) in infrastructure design even when formal codes have not yet been updated, supporting the argument that professional duty exceeds regulatory minimums
Climate as Moving Target Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Flooding risk assessment for upstream homeowners
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure
The BER holds that engineers can no longer treat historical climate and weather data as a fixed baseline for design purposes; climate and weather patterns must be treated as a 'moving target,' requiring Engineer A to incorporate projected future climate conditions — not merely historical data — into the assessment of flooding impacts on upstream homes.
In this context, the moving target principle requires Engineer A to consult updated precipitation data and climate projections, and to recognize that historical baselines may systematically understate future flooding risk.
The moving target principle supplements the standard of care by requiring engineers to go beyond historical baselines even when regulatory standards have not yet been updated to require it.
In recent decades, as climate and weather data are updated, the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change.
Competence Boundary Constraint - Engineer A Specialized Coastal Hydraulic Modeling
Engineer A's judgment about upstream flood risk is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, not on completed specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, indicating a competence boundary in specialized coastal flood modeling.
Engineer A's professional competence boundary in specialized coastal hydraulic modeling — including combined sea level rise, tidal dynamics, and storm surge prediction — constrains the degree to which Engineer A can independently quantify the upstream flood risk without engaging a specialized subconsultant, establishing that Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment is grounded in conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.2; Professional Competence Standard - Hydrology and Coastal Modeling Threshold
Throughout the design and permitting phase
Competing Duties - Faithful Agent vs. Public Safety
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis through resolution of the conflict
Engineer A's simultaneous obligations as faithful agent to Client B and as licensed professional to protect public safety of upstream homeowners
Client B authorizing the analysis, Engineer A disassociating, regulatory authority requiring the analysis, or project abandonment
Client B's explicit direction to proceed without the recommended third-party risk analysis, placing Engineer A's faithful agent duty in direct tension with public safety obligations
Competing Duties — Client Authority vs. Third-Party Protection
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis through resolution
Engineer A's simultaneous obligations to serve Client B's project interests and to protect upstream homeowners from foreseeable harm
Resolution through analysis authorization, disclosure to regulators, or project withdrawal
Client B's direction to defer the risk analysis, placing Engineer A's faithful agent duty in direct conflict with the paramount obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare
Competing Public Goods Balancing Invoked By Engineer A Developer vs Upstream Community
Upstream Neighborhood Twenty Homes Community
Engineer A identified a genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods — the public benefit of a new healthcare facility requiring the tidal crossing upgrade, and the public welfare of twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated uninhabitability — requiring Engineer A to present both goods and their trade-offs to Client B and the regulatory authority rather than resolving the conflict unilaterally
In this context, competing public goods balancing requires Engineer A to present the full trade-off between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare cost to upstream homeowners, and to recommend that the regulatory authority make the value trade-off decision through the public hearing process rather than allowing it to be resolved by default through the omission of specialized analysis
Competing Public Goods Balancing in Engineering Advisory Roles
anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
The competing public goods balancing principle requires Engineer A to present both goods transparently to decision-makers rather than allowing Client B's cost management preference to unilaterally resolve the trade-off in favor of the healthcare facility at the expense of upstream homeowners
Engineer A has an obligation to consider potential impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, regardless of whether that is required by applicable law, including changing weather patterns and climate.
The Board interprets Engineer A's professional obligation to consider public health, safety, and welfare as extending beyond what applicable law requires, explicitly including climate change and changing weather patterns as factors that must be considered in engineering judgment.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A must consider public health, safety, and welfare regardless of applicable law, the obligation is not merely reactive but carries a proactive dimension: Engineer A must independently assess whether the regulatory standard itself is climatically adequate before accepting it as a sufficient design baseline. The 25-year fresh-water storm standard embedded in local development regulations was developed under historical precipitation assumptions that Engineer A's own professional judgment — informed by transportation agency conference procedures — identifies as no longer representative of future conditions at a tidal saltmarsh crossing subject to sea level rise and shifting storm surge dynamics. Accepting a regulatory minimum as ethically sufficient when professional knowledge indicates that minimum is structurally obsolete would reduce the engineer's public safety obligation to mere procedural compliance, which the NSPE Code explicitly rejects. Engineer A therefore bears an independent obligation to document, at the outset of design, the gap between the regulatory standard and the climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, and to communicate that gap in writing to Client B. This documentation obligation is not contingent on Client B's authorization and is not satisfied by silent compliance with the 25-year standard.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must consider climate-change-induced conditions not yet occurred implicitly establishes that the temporal horizon of the public safety obligation extends across the reasonably foreseeable service life of the infrastructure, not merely its condition at the moment of construction or initial permitting. A tidal crossing bridge is a long-lived asset whose hydraulic interactions with upstream hydrology will intensify as sea levels rise and precipitation recurrence intervals compress. Engineer A's ethical obligation therefore encompasses not only present-state flood risk but the trajectory of risk over the structure's operational life. This temporal extension has a practical consequence: even if the upstream flood harm is not certain to materialize within the near term, the irreversibility of the harm — homes rendered uninhabitable potentially a decade earlier than otherwise — and the long lead time required for regulatory, planning, and community adaptation responses mean that disclosure obligations are triggered at a lower threshold of certainty than would apply to a readily reversible or short-duration harm. The Board's framework, read in light of the irreversibility and long-horizon nature of the harm, supports the conclusion that Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment, though unconfirmed by specialized subconsultant analysis, is sufficient to trigger at minimum a written notification obligation to Client B and a proposal to include the concern in regulatory submissions.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A must consider climate impacts regardless of whether law requires it implicitly resolves the tension between regulatory compliance and professional judgment in favor of professional judgment as the operative ethical floor. This resolution has a further implication the Board did not address: Engineer A's obligation to consider climate-adjusted conditions is not diminished by the fact that Client B's refusal to fund the specialized subconsultant analysis leaves the upstream flood risk quantitatively unresolved. The absence of a completed specialized analysis does not eliminate the ethical obligation; it merely shapes how that obligation is discharged. Engineer A must distinguish between the epistemic question — how certain is the harm — and the normative question — at what level of certainty does disclosure become obligatory. The Board's framework, combined with Code provisions requiring objective and truthful professional reports and non-acquiescence when judgment is overruled in circumstances endangering life or property, supports the conclusion that Engineer A's qualified professional judgment, explicitly labeled as preliminary and subject to further analysis, is a factual matter that must appear in any engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities. Omitting it entirely, at Client B's direction, would render the report incomplete and potentially misleading to the regulatory agencies and public who rely on it — a result incompatible with the objectivity and truthfulness obligations of Code Section II.3.a.
The Board's recommended course of action — that Engineer A should include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public if Client B denies the requisite evaluation — implicitly requires that Engineer A first exhaust a graduated sequence of engagement with Client B before resorting to unilateral disclosure. The Board's recommendation should not be read as authorizing immediate unilateral regulatory disclosure upon Client B's first refusal. The faithful agent obligation, bounded though it is by public safety, requires Engineer A to give Client B a meaningful opportunity to reconsider by communicating in writing: the specific nature of the foreseeable upstream harm, the professional basis for that judgment, the legal and reputational exposure Client B faces if the harm materializes and the omitted analysis is later discovered, and a formal proposal that the concern be included in the regulatory report in qualified form. This written notification serves the dual function of discharging the faithful agent duty at its highest expression — protecting Client B from foreseeable liability — and creating a documented record that Engineer A did not acquiesce silently to the suppression of safety-relevant information. Only after Client B has received this written notification and has nonetheless refused both the specialized analysis and the inclusion of the concern in regulatory submissions does Engineer A's obligation to proceed with independent disclosure to regulatory authorities become unambiguous and immediate.
The Board's recommendation that Engineer A include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public does not fully resolve the question of whether disclosure to regulatory agencies through official reports is sufficient to satisfy Engineer A's third-party harm notification duty to the twenty upstream homeowners, or whether those homeowners — as the specific identifiable community facing foreseeable uninhabitability — are owed a more direct form of notification. The NSPE Code's paramount obligation to public safety, combined with the specificity and severity of the foreseeable harm to an identifiable group of twenty households, suggests that regulatory report disclosure, while necessary, may not be sufficient if there is reason to believe that regulatory processes will not reliably transmit the risk information to the affected community in time for meaningful adaptive response. Engineer A does not bear a general duty to notify all members of the public about every foreseeable project risk, but where the affected third parties are specifically identifiable, the harm is severe and potentially irreversible, and the regulatory process may not provide adequate notice, the public safety paramount obligation supports Engineer A at minimum ensuring that the engineering report is submitted in a public hearing context where affected homeowners have a realistic opportunity to access and respond to the disclosed concern. Engineer A should also consider whether the public hearing process for local permitting provides that opportunity, and if not, whether additional steps — such as ensuring the concern is communicated through the permitting authority's public notice process — are warranted.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer A should include the upstream flood risk concern in an engineering report if Client B denies the requisite evaluation implicitly addresses only the disclosure dimension of Engineer A's obligations and does not fully resolve the question of whether continued engagement with the project itself — proceeding to design and permit the tidal crossing under the 25-year standard without the specialized analysis — constitutes acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information. If Engineer A proceeds to complete the design and submit permit applications while including only a qualified disclosure of the upstream flood concern in the engineering report, Engineer A is simultaneously advancing the project that generates the risk and disclosing the risk. This dual posture is ethically coherent only if the regulatory process can be reasonably expected to halt or condition the project based on the disclosed concern. If Engineer A has reason to believe that the regulatory process will not adequately respond to a qualified disclosure — for example, because the applicable regulations do not require consideration of climate-adjusted conditions and the regulatory authority lacks the technical capacity to evaluate the concern independently — then continued project advancement may itself constitute a form of acquiescence. In that scenario, the Board's graduated escalation framework supports the conclusion that Engineer A must consider conditional withdrawal from the engagement as the final step if regulatory disclosure proves insufficient to protect the upstream community, consistent with the withdrawal obligation recognized in analogous Board cases.
If Engineer A is reasonably certain that the project will result in adverse impacts to public health, safety, and welfare, and if the Client B denies the requisite evaluation, Engineer A should include the concern regarding potential adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
The Board recommends that when Engineer A is reasonably certain of adverse public health, safety, and welfare impacts and Client B refuses to authorize the necessary evaluation, Engineer A's ethical obligation is to include those concerns in an engineering report for regulatory agencies and the public, drawing on the faithful agent duty bounded by public welfare paramount, non-acquiescence to client suppression of safety analysis, and the proactive disclosure obligation supported by analogous BER cases.
In response to Q101: The threshold of professional certainty sufficient to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation does not require the completion of a specialized subconsultant analysis. Engineer A's preliminary judgment, grounded in hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recognized transportation agency conference, constitutes a professionally defensible basis for qualified disclosure — provided that disclosure is explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment rather than a confirmed finding. The ethical trigger is not certainty but reasonable professional concern: when a licensed engineer, applying recognized technical procedures within their competence, forms a judgment that a project may foreseeably harm third parties, the obligation to communicate that concern to appropriate parties is activated. The absence of the specialized analysis does not eliminate the disclosure duty; it shapes the epistemic framing of that disclosure. Engineer A should disclose the concern as a preliminary judgment requiring further investigation, not as a concluded finding. Suppressing even a qualified concern because it has not yet been fully quantified would allow the resource constraint imposed by Client B to functionally override a public safety obligation — an outcome the NSPE Code does not permit.
In response to Q102: Engineer A does not bear an independent ethical obligation to notify the twenty upstream homeowners directly and individually. The NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is satisfied through disclosure to regulatory agencies and the public via official engineering reports and public hearing testimony — channels that are structurally designed to aggregate and act upon exactly this kind of third-party risk information. Direct notification to individual homeowners would bypass the regulatory process, potentially create legal exposure for Engineer A, and could constitute communication outside the scope of the professional engagement without client authorization. However, this conclusion carries an important qualification: if regulatory disclosure proves ineffective — for example, if the engineering report is suppressed, if public hearings are not held, or if regulatory agencies demonstrably fail to act on the disclosed concern — the ethical calculus shifts. In such circumstances, Engineer A's obligation to hold public safety paramount may require escalation beyond the standard regulatory channel. The sufficiency of regulatory disclosure is therefore conditional on that channel remaining genuinely functional and accessible to the affected community.
In response to Q103: Engineer A's ethical obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions does not, in the context of this specific engagement, extend to a proactive duty to advocate for updates to local development regulations or national design codes beyond the scope of the immediate project. The NSPE Code encourages sustainable development and environmental stewardship, but these are aspirational provisions that do not generate mandatory obligations equivalent to the public safety paramount duty. Engineer A's primary obligation is to address the regulatory gap as it affects this project — by exercising independent professional judgment that exceeds the minimum regulatory standard where necessary to protect public safety, and by disclosing the gap to regulatory authorities in the context of the project's permitting process. Broader advocacy for code reform, while professionally commendable and consistent with the spirit of the Code, is a discretionary professional contribution rather than a binding ethical requirement arising from this engagement. The distinction matters: conflating aspirational encouragement with mandatory obligation would impose an unworkable burden on individual practitioners and obscure the more immediate and actionable duties that the Code does impose.
In response to Q104: The public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility does not alter the fundamental ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk, but it does bear on the question of project withdrawal. The competing public goods dimension — a healthcare facility serving a broader community versus flood protection for twenty upstream households — is a policy and planning judgment that belongs to regulatory agencies and elected officials, not to Engineer A acting unilaterally. Engineer A's ethical role is to ensure that decision-makers have complete and accurate information about both the benefits and the foreseeable harms of the project, not to resolve the competing goods question by suppressing one side of it. Accordingly, the existence of a genuine public benefit from the healthcare facility strengthens rather than weakens the case for full disclosure: regulatory authorities cannot make a legitimate public interest determination if the upstream flood risk is withheld from the record. The competing public goods dimension does, however, counsel against reflexive withdrawal — Engineer A's continued engagement, conditioned on honest reporting of the risk, may produce a better outcome for all affected parties than withdrawal that transfers the project to a less risk-aware engineer.
In response to Q201: The faithful agent obligation to Client B and the proactive risk disclosure obligation to upstream homeowners and regulatory authorities are in genuine tension in this case, but the tension is resolved by the hierarchical structure of the NSPE Code. The public safety paramount obligation (Canon I.1) is explicitly positioned above the faithful agent obligation (Canon I.4), and the Code's provisions on overruled judgment (II.1.a) make clear that when a client directive endangers life or property, the engineer's duty to notify appropriate authorities supersedes the duty of client loyalty. Client B's explicit direction to suppress the climate risk analysis does not transform that suppression into an ethically permissible act — it transforms it into precisely the kind of client override that activates Engineer A's independent disclosure obligation. The faithful agent principle is not eliminated by this hierarchy; it continues to operate within its proper domain, requiring Engineer A to act in Client B's legitimate interests, to maintain confidentiality of proprietary information, and to pursue the project's objectives competently. But it cannot be invoked to justify withholding safety-relevant information from regulatory authorities when Engineer A has formed a reasonable professional judgment that third-party harm is foreseeable.
In response to Q202: The principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment and the principle of Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation do not conflict in a way that eliminates the disclosure duty, but they do shape its form and scope. Engineer A's competence boundary — the recognition that a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis is needed for full quantification — does not preclude disclosure; it defines the epistemic register of that disclosure. A professionally competent engineer is expected to recognize the limits of their own analysis and to communicate those limits transparently. Engineer A's obligation under II.2.a is not to perform the specialized coastal hydraulic modeling personally, but to recognize that such modeling is needed and to communicate that need — along with the preliminary judgment that motivated it — to appropriate parties. The competence boundary constraint therefore reinforces rather than limits the disclosure duty: it requires Engineer A to disclose both the preliminary concern and the analytical gap that prevents its full quantification, rather than either overstating the certainty of the preliminary judgment or using the absence of full certainty as a reason to remain silent.
In response to Q203: The principle of Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal and the principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives are not in fundamental conflict, but they operate on different timescales and with different triggers. Graduated escalation is the appropriate first response to Client B's refusal: Engineer A should document the risk concern in writing to Client B, formally propose inclusion of the concern in the regulatory report as an intermediate step, and make explicit the professional and legal consequences of proceeding without the analysis. This sequence preserves the client relationship where possible and ensures that Client B's refusal is fully informed and documented. However, continued engagement with the project beyond this escalation sequence — particularly if Engineer A proceeds to submit regulatory documents that omit the upstream flood risk concern — would itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information. The ethical boundary is not the moment of Client B's initial refusal but the moment at which Engineer A's own professional work product begins to reflect that suppression. At that point, continued engagement without disclosure or withdrawal crosses from graduated escalation into complicity.
In response to Q204: The conflict between Regulatory Gap Awareness and Regulatory Compliance is real and significant in this case. Engineer A is legally required to design to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard, and compliance with that standard is not itself an ethical violation. However, the NSPE Code makes clear that regulatory compliance represents a floor, not a ceiling, for professional ethical obligation. Engineer A's independent professional judgment — that compliance with the applicable standard will foreseeably cause harm to third parties under climate-adjusted conditions — creates an obligation that operates above and independent of the regulatory minimum. The regulatory gap does not excuse Engineer A from acting on that judgment; it is precisely the existence of such gaps that makes independent professional judgment ethically necessary. Engineer A's obligation is therefore to comply with the regulatory standard in the design itself while simultaneously disclosing, through appropriate channels, the professional judgment that the standard is climatically inadequate for this project and that the resulting design may foreseeably harm upstream residents. Regulatory compliance and ethical disclosure are not mutually exclusive — they are complementary obligations that must both be honored.
In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount does generate a strong and largely non-negotiable obligation to disclose foreseeable upstream flood risks to regulatory authorities, independent of client authorization. Deontological reasoning treats the duty not to be complicit in foreseeable harm to identifiable third parties as categorical — it cannot be overridden by consequentialist calculations about project benefits, client financial interests, or the uncertainty of the causal chain. The twenty upstream homeowners are identifiable, the harm is foreseeable based on Engineer A's professional judgment, and the mechanism of harm runs directly through Engineer A's own design work. Under a Kantian framework, Engineer A cannot universalize a maxim that permits engineers to suppress foreseeable third-party harm information when clients direct them to do so — such a maxim would systematically undermine the social trust that makes professional engineering practice possible. The deontological conclusion therefore aligns with the Board's recommendation: disclosure to regulatory authorities is obligatory, not merely permissible, once Engineer A has formed a reasonable professional judgment of foreseeable harm.
In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the ethical case for Engineer A's unilateral disclosure to regulators is strong but not unconditional. The magnitude of harm — twenty households rendered uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise — is significant and largely irreversible. The causal chain, while running through uncertain future climate conditions, is grounded in Engineer A's professional judgment based on recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures, giving it sufficient probability weight to count heavily in a consequentialist calculus. The professional and financial costs to Engineer A of disclosure are real but bounded and recoverable. Against this, the consequentialist must also weigh the possibility that disclosure triggers a more thorough regulatory review that results in project redesign, mitigation measures, or denial — outcomes that could protect both the upstream community and, ultimately, Client B from greater legal and reputational liability. The consequentialist analysis therefore supports disclosure, with the important caveat that the form of disclosure matters: a qualified, professionally framed disclosure through official channels is more likely to produce beneficial outcomes than an unqualified or inflammatory disclosure that could be dismissed or that could unnecessarily damage the project's legitimate public benefit.
In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics perspective, a professionally virtuous engineer in Engineer A's position does not proceed silently under a regulatory standard they personally judge to be climatically obsolete and foreseeably harmful. The virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis) requires Engineer A to recognize that the situation calls for more than technical compliance — it calls for the exercise of professional judgment about what the situation actually demands, independent of what the minimum standard permits. The virtue of courage (andreia) requires Engineer A to communicate that judgment openly, even at the cost of client displeasure and potential loss of the engagement. The virtue of integrity requires that Engineer A's professional work product — including engineering reports submitted to regulatory agencies — accurately reflect their actual professional judgment rather than a sanitized version shaped by client economic preferences. A virtuous engineer does not contest the regulatory standard by refusing to design to it — that would be both legally impermissible and professionally inappropriate. Rather, a virtuous engineer designs to the required standard while openly and honestly communicating, through appropriate professional channels, the judgment that the standard is inadequate for the conditions this project will face. Virtue ethics thus supports the Board's conclusion while adding the dimension that the manner of disclosure — honest, measured, professionally framed, and courageously delivered — is itself an expression of professional character.
In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's duty as faithful agent to Client B does independently generate an obligation to warn Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities that could follow if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered. This framing is not merely strategically useful — it is ethically required. A faithful agent who possesses professional knowledge that their client's chosen course of action exposes the client to foreseeable legal and reputational harm, and who fails to communicate that knowledge, has failed in the agent duty regardless of whether the client has directed the agent to proceed. The written risk notification to Client B therefore serves a dual function: it fulfills the faithful agent obligation by ensuring Client B's decision to proceed without the analysis is fully informed, and it creates a documented record that Engineer A discharged their professional duty. This framing also recharacterizes the disclosure obligation not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its highest expression — the agent who tells the client only what the client wants to hear is not a faithful agent but a sycophant. The NSPE Code provision at III.1.b, requiring engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful, supports this reading directly.
In response to Q401: Engineer A's hypothetical refusal of the engagement at the outset would not have constituted a clearly superior ethical outcome. While such a refusal would have preserved Engineer A's personal ethical integrity with respect to this project, it would not have protected the upstream community — and might have made their situation worse. A less climate-aware engineer, unaware of or indifferent to the hydraulic interaction between the tidal crossing upgrade and upstream flood risk, would likely have proceeded without any concern for upstream harm, without recommending a specialized subconsultant analysis, and without any inclination to disclose the risk to regulatory authorities. The upstream community's protection depends not merely on Engineer A's personal non-participation but on the risk concern being surfaced, documented, and communicated to decision-makers. Engineer A's continued engagement — conditioned on honest professional reporting — is therefore more likely to produce a protective outcome than withdrawal at the outset. This counterfactual reinforces the ethical importance of Engineer A remaining engaged while insisting on disclosure, rather than treating withdrawal as the primary expression of ethical integrity.
In response to Q402: If Client B had authorized the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis and that analysis confirmed Engineer A's preliminary judgment, the ethical obligations triggered would be substantially more demanding than those arising from the preliminary judgment alone. Confirmed quantitative findings of foreseeable upstream uninhabitability would eliminate the epistemic qualification that currently attaches to Engineer A's disclosure obligation — the concern would no longer be a preliminary professional judgment but a documented engineering finding. In that scenario, Engineer A's obligation to include the concern in the regulatory report would become unambiguous and non-negotiable; the option of proceeding without disclosure would be foreclosed. Additionally, confirmed findings would trigger obligations regarding project redesign: Engineer A would be obligated to advise Client B of design alternatives that could mitigate the upstream harm, and to document that advice. The Board's conclusion would likely be more demanding in that scenario — the graduated escalation framework would compress, and the threshold for withdrawal in the event of continued client suppression would be reached more quickly. The counterfactual thus illustrates that the current case, while ethically demanding, involves a somewhat more qualified disclosure obligation than would arise from a completed and confirmed analysis.
In response to Q403: If Engineer A had submitted the upstream flood risk concern to regulatory agencies without first exhausting graduated engagement with Client B — specifically without written notification of risk consequences and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — that unilateral disclosure would have constituted a procedural breach of the faithful agent obligation, even if the substantive disclosure was ethically required. The faithful agent duty requires Engineer A to give Client B the opportunity to respond to a fully informed presentation of the professional and legal consequences of suppression before taking unilateral action. This procedural sequence is not merely a courtesy — it is ethically significant because it preserves the possibility that Client B, once fully informed, will authorize the disclosure voluntarily, avoiding the need for unilateral action and preserving the professional relationship. However, the ethical weight of procedural sequence is not unlimited: if Client B has already issued an explicit and unambiguous refusal after being fully informed, the procedural requirement is satisfied and Engineer A may proceed to disclosure without further delay. The urgency of public safety does not justify bypassing the graduated engagement sequence when that sequence can be completed quickly, but it does justify compressing the timeline and does not require Engineer A to accept indefinite delay in the name of client process.
In response to Q404: If local development regulations and national design codes had already incorporated sea level rise projections and climate-adjusted precipitation recurrence intervals, Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis would have constituted a clearer and more unambiguous ethical violation — because it would have been simultaneously a regulatory violation and an ethical one, with no ambiguity about the applicable standard. The absence of updated standards does meaningfully complicate the ethical landscape by creating a zone of regulatory ambiguity in which Engineer A's professional judgment operates without external validation from the regulatory framework. However, this complication does not reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation — it makes the exercise of independent professional judgment more important, not less. The NSPE Code's public safety paramount obligation is explicitly stated to operate regardless of whether it is required by applicable law, and the Board's first conclusion affirms this directly. The regulatory gap therefore functions as a context that increases the ethical burden on Engineer A's independent judgment, rather than as a shield that reduces it. A professionally competent engineer is expected to recognize when applicable standards are inadequate for the conditions at hand and to exercise judgment accordingly — that is precisely the professional function that licensing and ethical codes are designed to protect and require.
The tension between Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Welfare and Public Welfare Paramount was resolved not by eliminating client loyalty as an obligation but by reframing it hierarchically: Engineer A's duty to Client B is real and operative, but it is lexically subordinate to the duty to hold public safety paramount. The case teaches that these two principles are not symmetrically weighted competing considerations to be balanced on a case-by-case basis. Rather, Public Welfare Paramount functions as a side-constraint that sets the outer boundary within which client loyalty may legitimately operate. Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis does not merely compete with Engineer A's public safety duty — it attempts to push Engineer A across that boundary. Once Client B's directive crosses into territory that foreseeably endangers third parties, the faithful agent obligation does not disappear but transforms: Engineer A's highest expression of client loyalty becomes warning Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial consequences of suppressing the analysis, rather than complying with the suppression. This reframing means that disclosure to Client B of risk consequences is not a betrayal of the faithful agent role but its most sophisticated fulfillment, and it also means that if Client B persists in the directive after that warning, the faithful agent obligation is fully exhausted and the public safety obligation becomes unambiguously dominant.
The tension between Professional Competence in Risk Assessment and Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation reveals a nuanced principle interaction that the case partially resolves but does not fully settle. Engineer A's hydraulic judgment is grounded in conference procedures rather than a completed specialized analysis, which means the Competence Boundary Constraint is genuinely operative: Engineer A cannot claim the same epistemic authority for a preliminary judgment as for a completed subconsultant study. However, the case teaches that the competence boundary constraint modulates the form and confidence level of disclosure rather than eliminating the disclosure obligation entirely. A professionally competent engineer who recognizes that a question exceeds their current analytical capacity is not thereby relieved of the obligation to flag that the question exists and that it is consequential. The Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition principle reinforces this: recognizing the limits of one's own competence and recommending specialized analysis is itself a competence-based obligation, not a retreat from it. Therefore, the disclosure that Engineer A is ethically required to make — whether to Client B, to regulatory authorities, or in an engineering report — must be appropriately qualified to reflect the preliminary nature of the judgment, but the qualification of the disclosure does not reduce it to silence. The ethical floor is a clearly framed, uncertainty-acknowledged disclosure that the upstream flood risk question is real, unresolved, and consequential, not a definitive quantitative finding.
The tension between Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal and Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis reveals that procedural sequence carries genuine ethical weight in this case, but that weight is not unlimited. The Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal principle reflects the recognition that withdrawal is a drastic remedy that should not be invoked prematurely, and that Engineer A's continued engagement — provided it is not itself an act of acquiescence — preserves the opportunity to protect the upstream community through internal advocacy, written risk notification to Client B, and formal proposals to include the concern in regulatory reports. However, the case also teaches that continued engagement has a threshold beyond which it becomes indistinguishable from complicity. That threshold is crossed when Engineer A proceeds with project deliverables in a manner that affirmatively suppresses or omits the upstream flood risk concern from documents that regulatory authorities and the public will rely upon. The ethical resolution is therefore sequential and conditional: Engineer A must first exhaust graduated engagement — written notification to Client B of risk consequences, formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — before withdrawal is triggered. But if Client B refuses both the specialized analysis and the inclusion of the concern in the regulatory report, the graduated escalation sequence is exhausted, and continued project participation without disclosure would itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information, triggering the withdrawal obligation. This means the procedural sequence is not merely a formality but a substantive ethical requirement that both protects the client relationship and establishes the factual predicate for justified withdrawal.
The tension between Regulatory Gap Awareness and Regulatory Compliance is resolved in this case by establishing that regulatory compliance sets a legal floor, not an ethical ceiling, and that professional engineering judgment operates independently of and above that floor. The applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard represents the minimum legal requirement, but Engineer A's independent professional judgment — informed by climate-adjusted hydraulic evaluation procedures — identifies a foreseeable harm to third parties that compliance with that standard will not prevent. The case teaches that the existence of a regulatory gap does not reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation; if anything, it heightens it, because the gap means that regulatory compliance will not automatically protect the upstream community and that Engineer A's professional judgment is the only mechanism available to surface the risk. The Climate Change as Moving Target principle reinforces this: because design standards have not yet been updated to reflect sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns, the engineer's independent obligation to consider those conditions is more demanding, not less, precisely because the regulatory framework has not yet caught up. The absence of updated standards does not provide ethical cover for ignoring foreseeable climate-driven harm; it creates an affirmative professional obligation to identify and disclose the gap. This conclusion also has implications for Q103: while Engineer A's primary obligation is to address the gap within the scope of the immediate project, the broader professional obligation to advocate for updated codes and standards — through professional societies, public comment, and technical publications — is a legitimate and encouraged extension of the same underlying principle, even if it is not a mandatory obligation in the immediate project context.
The principle of objectivity and completeness in professional reports — synthesized with the principle of third-party flood risk community notification — resolves the question of to whom Engineer A's disclosure obligations run in a way that extends beyond the immediate client relationship. Drawing on the precedent established in BER Case 07.6, where an engineer was required to include adverse environmental findings in a report submitted to public authorities even when those findings were inconvenient to the client, the current case confirms that Engineer A's reporting obligations run simultaneously to Client B, to regulatory authorities, and implicitly to the public whose interests those authorities represent. The upstream homeowners, as identifiable third parties facing foreseeable material harm, are the ultimate beneficiaries of this multi-directional disclosure obligation even if they are not direct recipients of Engineer A's report. This synthesis teaches that the objectivity principle is not merely a constraint on what engineers may omit from reports they choose to write; it is an affirmative obligation to ensure that the information necessary for informed regulatory and public decision-making reaches the appropriate institutional channels, regardless of whether the client has authorized or funded the analysis that would have quantified that information more precisely. The absence of quantification does not eliminate the disclosure obligation; it shapes its form — a qualified, professionally bounded statement of foreseeable risk rather than a quantified finding.
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked as Counterfactual
Decision whether to proceed with tidal crossing design without specialized analysis
Had Engineer A been professionally comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A could have ethically proceeded with the project while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it — but this conditional permission does not apply given the facts presented
The conditional permission to proceed under documented uncertainty is not available to Engineer A in this case because the facts indicate that Engineer A cannot form a professional judgment that significant harm is unlikely — the condition precedent for the permission is not satisfied
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
The conditional permission to proceed is bounded by the engineer's honest professional assessment; where the engineer cannot form a judgment that significant harm is unlikely, the permission does not apply and the full escalation obligation is triggered
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment. However, with the facts as presented, Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation...
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Decision whether to proceed with tidal crossing design without specialized hydrologic analysis
The BER notes that the outcome might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely — in which case Engineer A might have ethically proceeded while documenting that judgment in writing and noting in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it. Because Engineer A was not so comfortable, this conditional permission does not apply.
In this context, the conditional proceeding principle establishes the boundary of its own application: it is available only when the engineer is genuinely comfortable that significant harm is unlikely, and it is unavailable when the engineer's professional judgment indicates that significant harm is reasonably likely.
The conditional proceeding permission is unavailable in this case because Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that significant flooding impacts are reasonably likely; the principle therefore resolves in favor of requiring full analysis or withdrawal.
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty as Alternative Pathway for Engineer A
Decision whether to proceed without specialized subconsultant analysis
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation
An alternative ethical pathway would permit Engineer A to proceed with the project without the specialized analysis if Engineer A documents in writing the professional judgment that the risk, while present, is insufficiently certain to require analysis before proceeding — and discloses this uncertainty to regulators during permitting.
In this context, the principle's applicability is limited by the fact that Engineer A's professional judgment affirmatively identifies material risk (decade-earlier uninhabitability of twenty homes), making conditional proceeding ethically questionable without at minimum regulatory disclosure.
The principle may permit conditional proceeding only if Engineer A's confidence that the risk is not material is reasonable — but the case facts suggest Engineer A believes the risk is real, limiting the applicability of this pathway.
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Both Avenues Refused
The BER concludes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both courses of action. This constraint establishes that withdrawal is mandatory — not optional — once both intermediate steps have been refused, and prohibits both premature withdrawal and indefinite continuation.
Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Constraint
Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project is triggered only after Engineer A has exhausted both available graduated engagement steps — direct client discussion and the regulatory report inclusion proposal — and Client B has refused both; once Client B refuses both intermediate options, withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory, not merely permissible.
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
After Client B refuses both the specialized analysis discussion and the regulatory report inclusion proposal
When Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment — grounded in hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recognized transportation agency conference — that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream uninhabitability for twenty households, but Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized subconsultant analysis, what course of action does Engineer A's ethical obligation require?
Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk to Client B and regulatory authorities, despite the absence of a completed specialized subconsultant analysis and Client B's explicit directive to omit the costly evaluation.
Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary upstream flood risk judgment, formally recommend engagement of a specialized subconsultant, propose including the qualified concern in the engineering report for regulatory consideration, and proceed to include that qualified disclosure in regulatory submissions if Client B refuses both the analysis and the report inclusion
Proceed with the design to the applicable 25-year storm standard as directed by Client B, document Engineer A's recommendation for specialized subconsultant analysis in internal project files, and await regulatory authority request before raising the upstream flood concern in any public or regulatory submission
Verbally advise Client B of the upstream flood concern at the next project meeting, note the concern in meeting minutes, and proceed with design under the regulatory standard while deferring formal written disclosure and regulatory report inclusion until the concern can be confirmed by a completed specialized analysis
When Client B explicitly refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, what sequence of actions does Engineer A's ethical obligation require before proceeding to unilateral regulatory disclosure or withdrawal from the project?
Engineer A's Graduated Escalation Sequence Before Unilateral Regulatory Disclosure or Project Withdrawal
Deliver written notification to Client B documenting the specific foreseeable upstream harm, the professional basis for the preliminary judgment, and the legal and reputational exposure Client B faces if the omitted analysis is later discovered, then formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report — and proceed to independent regulatory disclosure only if Client B refuses both after receiving this fully informed written notification
Treat Client B's explicit refusal as a sufficient and final impasse, bypass further written engagement with Client B, and immediately include the upstream flood risk concern as a qualified preliminary judgment in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities without additional client notification
Continue project engagement under the applicable 25-year storm standard while documenting Engineer A's professional disagreement in internal project files, deferring any regulatory disclosure or written client notification until the design phase is complete and a formal permit application is being prepared
Given that Engineer A's upstream flood risk assessment is a preliminary professional judgment grounded in conference procedures rather than a completed specialized subconsultant analysis — and that Client B has refused to fund that analysis — what form of disclosure does Engineer A's ethical obligation require, and at what threshold of professional certainty does that obligation attach?
Form and Threshold of Engineer A's Disclosure Obligation Given Preliminary — Not Confirmed — Professional Judgment of Upstream Flood Risk
Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities, explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment grounded in recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures, noting that specialized subconsultant analysis is needed for quantitative confirmation and that Client B has declined to fund that analysis
Omit the upstream flood risk concern from the regulatory report on the grounds that the preliminary judgment has not been confirmed by specialized subconsultant analysis, and instead document the concern solely in internal project correspondence and in written notification to Client B, treating the unconfirmed judgment as below the professional reliability threshold for regulatory submission
Include in the regulatory report a general notation that climate-adjusted hydraulic conditions were considered but that the applicable 25-year storm standard was applied as required by local development regulations, without specifically disclosing the preliminary judgment regarding upstream uninhabitability, thereby acknowledging climate awareness while deferring the specific risk finding to a future analysis if the project advances
Does Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B independently require a written warning documenting the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities Client B faces if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered — and does discharging this obligation reframe disclosure not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its most sophisticated fulfillment?
Engineer A's Obligation to Warn Client B in Writing of Legal, Reputational, and Financial Consequences as the Highest Expression of Faithful Agent Duty
Deliver a formal written notification to Client B specifically documenting the legal liability exposure, reputational risk, and financial consequences Client B faces if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered — framing this notification as the highest expression of the faithful agent duty and creating a documented record of Engineer A's non-acquiescence before proceeding to any regulatory disclosure
Treat the prior verbal recommendation to conduct the specialized subconsultant analysis as sufficient discharge of the faithful agent notification duty, proceed without a separate written liability warning to Client B, and move directly to including the qualified upstream flood risk concern in the regulatory report — on the grounds that Client B's refusal was already an informed business decision that a written notification would not change
Document Engineer A's professional recommendation and Client B's refusal in project correspondence using standard scope-change and professional-disagreement language, without specifically framing the notification in terms of Client B's legal and reputational liability exposure — treating the liability consequences as a matter for Client B's own legal counsel rather than within the scope of Engineer A's professional advisory role
When Client B directs Engineer A to suppress a preliminary professional judgment of foreseeable upstream flood harm from regulatory submissions, what is Engineer A's ethically required course of action with respect to disclosure obligations, graduated engagement with the client, and continued project participation?
Engineer A must decide how to respond when Client B explicitly directs omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis and refuses to authorize disclosure of the preliminary upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, given Engineer A's independent professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade will foreseeably accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes under climate-adjusted conditions.
Issue written notification to Client B documenting the preliminary upstream flood risk judgment, the professional and legal consequences of suppressing the analysis, and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report in qualified form; if Client B refuses after receiving this notification, independently include the upstream flood risk concern — explicitly framed as a preliminary professional judgment requiring further investigation — in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and the public, and consider conditional withdrawal if regulatory response is foreseeably inadequate
Continue project engagement and complete the tidal crossing design to the applicable 25-year storm standard, documenting Engineer A's recommendation for specialized subconsultant analysis in internal project files and in direct written communications to Client B, while deferring any regulatory disclosure of the upstream flood concern until Client B either authorizes the specialized analysis or the regulatory permitting process independently raises the question
Immediately include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without first issuing written notification to Client B of the risk consequences, on the grounds that Client B's explicit refusal to fund the specialized analysis constitutes a constructive refusal of the intermediate graduated engagement step and that the urgency of public safety justifies bypassing the written notification sequence
Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare require independent professional assessment of whether the applicable 25-year storm regulatory standard is climatically adequate for a tidal saltmarsh crossing, and must Engineer A document and communicate any identified gap between that standard and climate-adjusted conditions regardless of whether Client B or applicable law requires it?
Engineer A must determine whether the public safety obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions — including sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns — applies independently of the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm regulatory standard, and whether that obligation requires proactive documentation of the regulatory gap and independent professional judgment about the adequacy of the design baseline before proceeding with the tidal saltmarsh crossing design.
Independently assess the climate adequacy of the 25-year storm standard for this tidal saltmarsh crossing at the outset of design, document in writing to Client B the identified gap between the regulatory standard and climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, propose a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis to quantify the upstream flood risk, and proceed with design to the regulatory standard while ensuring the gap and preliminary judgment are disclosed in all engineering reports submitted to regulatory authorities
Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm standard as required by local development regulations, treating regulatory compliance as the operative design baseline, and raise climate adequacy concerns only if Client B or the regulatory authority independently requests an assessment of conditions beyond the regulatory minimum
Document the climate adequacy concern in internal project files and verbally advise Client B of the potential upstream flood risk, but defer formal written notification and regulatory report disclosure until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and the preliminary judgment is quantitatively confirmed, on the grounds that disclosing an unconfirmed preliminary judgment could be professionally misleading and prematurely alarm regulatory authorities
After Client B has issued an explicit directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis, what sequence of escalation steps does Engineer A's ethical obligation require before proceeding to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions or withdrawing from the project, and at what point does continued project engagement itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information?
Engineer A's obligation to pursue a graduated escalation sequence — including written notification to Client B of legal and reputational risk consequences, formal proposal to include the upstream flood concern in the regulatory engineering report, and conditional withdrawal — before and as a condition of any unilateral disclosure to regulatory authorities.
Deliver written notification to Client B identifying the specific foreseeable upstream harm, the professional and legal consequences of proceeding without the analysis, and a formal proposal to include the qualified concern in the engineering report for regulatory consideration; proceed to include the concern in regulatory submissions if Client B refuses both the analysis and the report inclusion; withdraw from the project if Client B refuses all avenues for addressing the identified risk
Treat Client B's explicit directive as a fully informed client decision that exhausts the graduated engagement requirement, and proceed immediately to include the upstream flood risk concern as a qualified preliminary judgment in the engineering report submitted to regulatory authorities without further written notification to Client B
Continue project engagement through the public regulatory hearing, raise the upstream flood risk concern verbally at the hearing in response to public questions, and treat the public hearing process as the appropriate channel for surfacing the concern without prior written notification to Client B or formal proposal to include the concern in the engineering report
Given that local development regulations require designing only to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard and do not yet incorporate sea level rise or climate-adjusted precipitation, does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures and to assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts of the proposed crossing upgrade — and does regulatory compliance with the existing standard satisfy or merely establish the floor of Engineer A's professional ethical obligation?
Engineer A's obligation to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation standards — going beyond the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm regulatory minimum — when assessing the tidal saltmarsh crossing upgrade, and to assess and disclose the ecological and hydraulic impacts on the tidal saltmarsh ecosystem, even when local regulations do not yet require such analysis.
Apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from the transportation agency conference to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the tidal crossing upgrade, document in writing to Client B the gap between the 25-year regulatory standard and the climate-adjusted conditions the structure will face over its service life, assess and disclose the tidal saltmarsh ecological impacts, and communicate both assessments to Client B and the regulatory authority regardless of whether local regulations require such analysis
Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in the engineering report that the design complies with all applicable regulatory requirements, and defer climate-adjusted analysis to future regulatory review cycles when updated standards are adopted
Design the tidal crossing to the applicable 25-year storm standard while noting in the engineering report that climate change may affect future conditions, recommend that Client B commission a separate climate impact study as a future project phase, and proceed with permitting under the current regulatory standard without formally disclosing the specific upstream flood risk judgment or the regulatory gap to the applicable regulatory authority in the current submission
When Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment — grounded in recognized hydraulic evaluation procedures — indicates foreseeable upstream flood harm, but Client B has refused to fund the specialized subconsultant analysis needed for full quantification, what form of disclosure obligation does Engineer A bear, and at what threshold of certainty is it triggered?
Engineer A's obligation to independently assess and disclose the upstream flood risk based on preliminary professional judgment, even without a completed specialized subconsultant analysis, when Client B has refused to fund that analysis
Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report as an explicitly qualified preliminary professional judgment, identifying the analytical gap and recommending specialized subconsultant analysis, regardless of Client B's refusal to fund that analysis
Withhold the upstream flood risk concern from the engineering report on the grounds that the preliminary judgment lacks the quantitative hydraulic confirmation required to meet the professional standard of care for a disclosed engineering finding, and document internally that specialized analysis was recommended but refused
Include in the engineering report only a general notation that climate-adjusted hydraulic conditions were considered beyond the scope of the current engagement, without disclosing the specific preliminary judgment about upstream uninhabitability, pending Client B's reconsideration of the subconsultant analysis budget
When Client B has refused both the specialized hydraulic analysis and authorization to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, must Engineer A first exhaust a graduated written-notification sequence before proceeding to unilateral regulatory disclosure, and at what point does continued project participation without disclosure cross from graduated escalation into complicity with the suppression of safety-relevant information?
Engineer A's obligation to exhaust graduated engagement with Client B — including written notification of legal and reputational risk consequences — before proceeding to unilateral disclosure of the upstream flood risk to regulatory authorities, and the point at which continued project engagement itself constitutes acquiescence to suppression
Deliver written notification to Client B documenting the specific upstream flood risk, the professional basis for the preliminary judgment, the legal and reputational liabilities Client B faces if the harm materializes, and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report in qualified form — then proceed to independent regulatory disclosure only if Client B refuses after receiving this fully informed notification
Proceed immediately to include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further written notification to Client B, on the grounds that Client B's explicit refusal already constitutes a fully informed rejection and additional written notification would merely delay disclosure of a public safety concern without adding substantive value to the client's decision-making
Continue performing non-suppressive project tasks while formally suspending submission of any regulatory documents pending Client B's reconsideration, and notify Client B in writing that Engineer A cannot submit engineering reports that omit the upstream flood risk concern without authorization to include it — treating the submission hold as the operative escalation mechanism rather than unilateral disclosure
Does the genuine public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — serving a broader community — alter Engineer A's ethical calculus for disclosure of upstream flood risk or for continued project engagement, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case belong to Engineer A's professional judgment or to regulatory decision-makers?
How Engineer A should weigh the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm when determining whether the public benefit of the project alters the ethical calculus for disclosure, withdrawal, or continued engagement
Remain engaged with the project while ensuring the engineering report fully discloses both the upstream flood risk and the competing public goods tension, explicitly framing the policy resolution of those competing goods as a matter for regulatory authorities rather than for Engineer A's unilateral judgment
Treat the healthcare facility's public benefit as a professionally relevant factor that, when weighed against the probabilistic and temporally uncertain upstream flood harm, justifies proceeding with the design under the applicable regulatory standard without elevating the upstream risk concern beyond a standard project notation — deferring the competing goods resolution to the permitting process without independent advocacy
Withdraw from the engagement on the grounds that the competing public goods tension — combined with Client B's refusal to fund the specialized analysis — creates an irresolvable conflict between Engineer A's obligations to the upstream community and to the healthcare facility's beneficiaries that Engineer A cannot ethically navigate within the constraints of the current engagement scope
When Client B refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, how should Engineer A discharge the disclosure obligation given that the professional judgment is preliminary rather than confirmed?
Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary upstream flood risk judgment to Client B and regulatory authorities when Client B has directed omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis
Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary flood risk judgment, the professional basis for it, and the legal and reputational consequences of suppression; formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report; and, if Client B refuses both, include the explicitly framed preliminary concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further client authorization
Document the preliminary flood risk concern internally and in correspondence to Client B, but defer inclusion in any regulatory submission until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and confirms the judgment, treating the absence of quantitative confirmation as a sufficient basis for withholding the concern from public-facing documents
Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies immediately upon forming the preliminary judgment, without first providing Client B a written opportunity to respond to the fully informed professional and legal consequences of suppression
Does Engineer A bear an ethical obligation to independently assess and disclose foreseeable upstream flood risk arising from climate-adjusted conditions at a tidal saltmarsh crossing, even though the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not require such analysis and the climate-induced harm has not yet occurred?
Engineer A's obligation to consider climate-change-induced upstream flood risk as within the scope of the public safety paramount duty, independent of whether applicable regulations require it or whether the harm has yet occurred
Independently assess the climate adequacy of the 25-year storm standard for this tidal saltmarsh crossing, document the gap between the regulatory standard and climate-adjusted conditions in writing to Client B at the outset of design, propose a specialized hydraulic subconsultant analysis, and disclose the upstream flood risk concern through appropriate regulatory channels regardless of whether Client B authorizes the analysis
Design to the applicable 25-year storm standard as required by local development regulations, note in project correspondence to Client B that climate-adjusted conditions may warrant additional analysis, and treat the absence of a regulatory requirement for that analysis as sufficient basis for proceeding without independent assessment or disclosure of the upstream flood risk
Assess the climate adequacy of the applicable standard and document the regulatory gap internally, but limit disclosure to Client B to a verbal recommendation for additional analysis and proceed with design under the 25-year standard without written documentation of the gap or formal proposal to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, treating the preliminary nature of the judgment as insufficient to trigger a formal written obligation
When Engineer A has exhausted graduated engagement with Client B and Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and inclusion of the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, does the competing public benefit of the healthcare facility counsel continued engagement conditioned on honest reporting, or does the suppression of safety-relevant information require withdrawal from the project?
Engineer A's obligation to balance the competing public goods of the healthcare facility against foreseeable upstream flood harm, and to determine whether continued project engagement or withdrawal better serves the public safety paramount obligation
Continue engagement with the project while including the explicitly framed preliminary upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies over Client B's objection, ensuring the regulatory process has complete information to make a legitimate public interest determination about the healthcare facility versus upstream flood harm
Withdraw from the project upon Client B's refusal to authorize either the specialized analysis or inclusion of the concern in regulatory submissions, treating non-participation as the clearest expression of non-acquiescence to suppression of safety-relevant information, and document the reasons for withdrawal in writing to Client B
Continue engagement and complete the design to the applicable 25-year standard without including the upstream flood risk concern in the regulatory report, treating the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the preliminary nature of the flood risk judgment as jointly sufficient to justify proceeding under the applicable regulatory framework while preserving the client relationship for future risk advocacy
{'entity_type': 'Private developer', 'project_type': 'Residential condominium development adjacent to protected wetlands', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
Developer who retained an environmental engineering firm to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential residential condominium development, bearing authority over project scope and subject to the engineer's obligation to include environmental threat information in reports to public authorities regardless of client preference.
{'type': 'provider', 'target': 'Engineer A Environmental Firm Principal'}
{'type': 'regulatory_subject', 'target': 'Public Authority Considering Developer Proposal'}
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-Client Impasse Reached (Event 5) → Public Safety Obligation Triggered (Event 6)
Engineer A BER 07.6 Objective Complete Reporting Bird Species Threat
Engineer A's firm biologist identified that a condominium development project could threaten a bird species inhabiting adjacent protected wetlands; Engineer A was preparing an analysis for submission to a public authority considering the developer's proposal.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding that the information was adverse to the client's development interests.
At the time of preparing the written report for submission to the public authority
Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion.
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 BER 07.6 Public Authority Submission Completeness Bird Species
Public Authority Submission Completeness Obligation Recognition Capability
Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 possessed — but failed to exercise — the capability to recognize that the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports required inclusion of the biologist's finding about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and to advise the developer client of its inclusion.
BER Case 07.6: Engineer A preparing environmental analysis for developer client for submission to public authority considering residential condominium development adjacent to protected wetlands.
BER determination that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority, and that Engineer A should have included the information and advised the client of its inclusion.
Engineer A (BER Case 07.6 Environmental Engineering Consultant)
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, and that it would be reasonable to assume that the public authority approving the development would be interested in this information.
Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development
Graduated Escalation Navigation Capability
Engineer A in BER Case 18-9 possessed the capability to navigate a graduated escalation sequence with the developer owner: first continuing to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage from storm surge; and, failing agreement on the proposed design standard, withdrawing from the project.
BER Case 18-9: Engineer A performing hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for proposed residential development, advocating for 100-year storm surge design standard refused by owner.
BER conclusion in Case 18-9 that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement, should withdraw from the project.
Engineer A (BER Case 18-9 Climate-Aware Coastal Infrastructure Engineer)
Engineer A BER 18-9 Graduated Escalation Coastal Development Withdrawal
Engineer A performed hydrodynamic modeling for a residential development and advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation; the owner refused to agree that such protection was required.
Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation
Engineer A in BER Case 18-9 was obligated to continue attempting to convince the owner of the potential for damage from storm surge, and, failing agreement on the proposed design standard, to withdraw from the project.
After the owner's refusal to adopt the recommended design standard
Engineer A BER Dual-Precedent Climate Safety Synthesis Tidal Crossing
BER Dual-Precedent Climate Safety Synthesis Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to synthesize the ethical frameworks from BER Cases 07.6 (objective and complete reporting to public authorities) and 18-9 (graduated escalation and withdrawal in coastal climate risk contexts) to determine the correct sequence of actions for the tidal crossing case: complete reporting of climate risks, client engagement, graduated escalation including regulatory report submission, and conditional withdrawal.
Engineer A applying BER precedent to determine the correct ethical action sequence for the tidal crossing upgrade case.
Application of the synthesized BER 07.6 and 18-9 framework to determine that Engineer A must: include climate risk information in public authority submissions, engage Client B in discussions, propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate step, and withdraw if both options are refused.
Engineer A (Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer)
In BER Case 07.6, Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm...
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment...
Turning to the current case, Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
Engineer A Client B Override Documentation Obligation Tidal Crossing
Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by the applicable regulatory authorities, overriding Engineer A's professional recommendation.
Engineer A was obligated to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, including Engineer A's professional recommendation, Client B's override decision, and the conditions under which Client B agreed to authorize the analysis (only if requested by regulatory authorities), so that the record reflects the engineer's professional judgment and the client's assumption of responsibility.
Upon receiving Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
Engineer A Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Tidal Crossing
Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized analysis unless regulators request it, overriding Engineer A's professional recommendation that the analysis is necessary to characterize material flood risks to upstream homeowners.
Client Cost-Directive Safety Analysis Non-Subordination Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to refuse to subordinate the professionally recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and to document in writing both Client B's directive and Engineer A's professional objection to proceeding without the analysis.
Upon receipt of Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes
Engineer A Client Override Written Documentation
Engineer A was obligated to document in writing Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, and possessed the capability to recognize this documentation obligation and fulfill it
The case facts do not confirm whether Engineer A actually documented the client override in writing; the capability is attributed based on the professional obligation triggered by Client B's directive
The case facts establish that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis, triggering Engineer A's obligation to document this override in writing
Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Client B Tidal Crossing
Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis for cost reasons; Engineer A's faithful agent duty required communicating the consequences of that refusal to Client B.
Client Risk Consequence Communication Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to authorize that analysis or the written documentation of the identified concern.
During discussions with Client B about the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis
Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Constraint Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's obligation to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for specialized analysis but also the potential risk to Client B of proceeding without it.
Engineer A was prohibited from omitting from client communications the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the upstream flood impacts — including legal, reputational, and regulatory risks — when engaging Client B in discussions about the need for specialized analysis, establishing that complete risk communication extends to consequences for the client as well as for the public.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Faithful Agent obligation
During client engagement discussions about the specialized hydraulic analysis recommendation
Engineer A Client Risk Consequence Communication Tidal Crossing
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis on cost grounds; Engineer A must ensure Client B understands the full consequences of that decision, including risks to Client B itself, before accepting the directive.
Engineer A is obligated to communicate to Client B not only the public welfare rationale for the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis but also the specific professional, legal, and reputational risks to Client B of declining to authorize the analysis — including potential liability to upstream homeowners and regulatory exposure — so that Client B can make a fully informed decision about whether to authorize the work.
Upon Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and before proceeding without it
Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Tidal Crossing
Climate-Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the local 25-year storm standard and historical data assumptions in local development regulations have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns, and to identify the resulting gap between regulatory compliance and actual public safety risk.
Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade design and permitting for Client B's health care facility access road across a tidal saltmarsh.
Engineer A's identification that local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess upstream flood risk.
Engineer A Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Engineer A has identified that local development regulations and national design codes have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns, and that the regulatory minimum is insufficient to characterize the actual flood risk to upstream homeowners.
Climate-Adjusted Regulatory Gap Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather conditions are outdated relative to current climate science, and that regulatory compliance alone does not constitute adequate public protection for the tidal crossing upgrade.
Upon Engineer A's identification of the regulatory gap and before submission of permit applications or public hearing presentations
Engineer A Climate Adjusted Design Standard Gap Identification
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify that applicable local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and to apply emerging climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the resulting risk gap
Engineer A independently identified the regulatory gap and applied emerging professional knowledge from a conference to form a preliminary judgment about upstream risk, demonstrating advanced capability to recognize and apply climate-informed standards beyond regulatory minimums
Engineer A's recognition that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not account for climate change, and application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to form a professional judgment about upstream uninhabitability risk
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering (sufficient understanding)', 'obligation_trigger': 'Recognition that significant flooding impacts on other properties are reasonably likely under future climate conditions'}
Engineer A is the primary professional engineer responsible for evaluating the infrastructure project's impacts on public health, safety, and welfare in light of climate change. Engineer A must judge whether specialized hydrologic/hydraulic/coastal modeling is needed, engage Client B on the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure, and withdraw if Client B refuses both courses of action.
{'type': 'public_responsibility_to', 'target': 'Affected Public'}
{'type': 'reports_to_if_client_refuses', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
{'type': 'serves', 'target': 'Client B Development Project Client Refusing Safety Evaluation'}
Climate Change Impact Evaluating Infrastructure Engineer
Engineer A does have an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law
Engineer A has an obligation to consider climate and weather changes in the future
Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation
Failing agreement by Client B... the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project
Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
The local 25-year storm standard is based on historical data that does not capture sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns; Engineer A must incorporate current climate science into the assessment.
Climate Change Moving Target Design Consideration Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the hydraulic and flood impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade.
Throughout the design and assessment phase of the tidal crossing project
Engineer A has an ethical obligation to address the impacts of the project on public health, safety, and welfare regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law.
Engineer A Climate Change Moving Target Tidal Crossing Design
Engineer A has recognized, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that the regulatory standard based on historical data does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and changing storm patterns relevant to the tidal crossing upgrade.
Engineer A is obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target in the tidal crossing design, incorporating current scientific understanding of sea level rise and changed precipitation patterns rather than relying solely on historical data baselines embedded in the 25-year storm standard.
Throughout the design and permitting process for the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Climate Impact Judgment Activation
From the point at which Engineer A formed a professional judgment that significant flooding impacts on third-party properties were reasonably likely, through the client engagement and disclosure discussions
Engineer A's professional engagement on the coastal/tidal crossing project with Client B
Either Client B's agreement to commission detailed evaluation and disclosure, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts
Engineer A's professional assessment that the project's hydraulic capacity increase creates sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future climate conditions
Engineer A Climate Informed Infrastructure Design Standard Application
Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess climate-adjusted flood risk, identifying that the proposed project may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability.
Engineer A was obligated to apply climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures — including those presented at the recent transportation agency conference — to assess the climate-adjusted flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, and to disclose the results of that assessment to Client B and the regulatory authority, even when local regulations do not yet require such analysis.
During design and permitting phases, upon identifying the regulatory gap between current standards and climate-adjusted risk
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Baseline Prohibition Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's design of a tidal crossing upgrade for Client B, where applicable local regulations required only a 25-year fresh-water storm standard that did not account for climate change effects on sea level rise and storm surge.
Engineer A was prohibited from treating the historical 25-year fresh-water storm design standard as a complete and adequate baseline for the tidal crossing upgrade design, given professional knowledge that climate and weather patterns are a moving target requiring dynamic forward-looking assessment of sea level rise and altered precipitation intensities.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures; BER Case 18-9
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Adaptation Tidal Crossing
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard represented a fixed historical baseline that did not account for climate change as a moving target, and that this gap created foreseeable public welfare risks for the tidal crossing project.
Engineer A designing tidal crossing infrastructure for Client B's healthcare facility project, identifying that applicable regulatory standards did not reflect current climate science.
Recognition that climate and weather patterns must be treated as a moving target rather than fixed historical data when assessing the adequacy of the tidal crossing design standard for long-term public welfare protection.
Engineer A Climate Moving Target Design Consideration Tidal Crossing
Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess climate-adjusted flood risk, recognizing that historical climate data no longer accurately represents future conditions for the tidal crossing design.
Engineer A was obligated to treat future climate and weather conditions as a dynamic moving target rather than fixed historical baselines when assessing the flood risk impacts of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade on upstream properties.
Engineer A Climate Regulatory Gap Disclosure Client B Tidal Crossing
Engineer A identified that local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects, and that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes by a decade or more.
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B that the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard does not account for climate change effects — including sea level rise and changed precipitation intensities — and that regulatory compliance with the outdated standard does not ensure that the tidal crossing upgrade will be safe for upstream homeowners over the project's design life.
Upon identifying the regulatory gap and before proceeding with design under the outdated standard
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Hydrodynamic modeling, coastal risk assessment, hydrology and hydraulics', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 18-9 and current case'}
Performed hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment for a proposed residential development, advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation based on newly identified historic weather data, faced client refusal to agree to that protection standard, and was obligated to either engage the client in detailed evaluation and disclosure discussions, propose inclusion of concerns in an engineering report for regulatory review, or withdraw from the project.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client B Developer'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reporting', 'target': 'Regulatory Agencies and Public'}
Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Balanced Advisory
Engineer A identified a conflict between the public benefit of a new healthcare facility and the upstream community flood risk, anticipating this to be a difficult question in public hearings.
Competing Public Goods Balanced Advisory Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to explicitly acknowledge and address in any regulatory submission or advisory report the genuine conflict between the public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility — requiring the tidal crossing upgrade — and the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk and uninhabitability, presenting the tradeoffs completely and objectively so that the regulatory authority can make an informed decision.
During preparation of regulatory submissions and public hearing materials
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Non-Distortion Tidal Crossing
The genuine conflict between the public benefit of improved healthcare facility access and the foreseeable harm to approximately twenty upstream homeowners from the tidal crossing upgrade.
Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from structuring any advisory report or regulatory submission in a manner that selectively emphasized the public benefit of the healthcare facility access road while omitting or minimizing the foreseeable harm to upstream homeowners — establishing that the genuine conflict between two legitimate public goods (healthcare access and upstream residential safety) must be presented honestly and completely.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 98-5; Competing Public Goods Non-Distortion Advisory Constraint
Throughout any advisory reporting or regulatory submission related to the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts.
Engineer A Competing Public Goods Healthcare Upstream Community Recognition
Competing Public Goods Conflict Recognition and Advisory Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to recognize that the proposed healthcare facility development created a genuine conflict between the public benefit of the healthcare facility and the public welfare of approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk, and to address this conflict explicitly in advisory communications and regulatory submissions
Engineer A recognized the competing public goods tension between the healthcare facility's public benefit and the upstream community's flood risk, as evidenced by the anticipation of difficult public hearing questions; the obligation to explicitly address this conflict in advisory reports and regulatory submissions was triggered by this recognition
Engineer A's anticipation that the upstream flood risk would be 'a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings,' indicating awareness of the competing public goods conflict requiring explicit acknowledgment
Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Capability
Engineer A possesses — but in the facts of this case does not exercise, because the risk threshold is too high — the capability to conditionally proceed with the tidal crossing project while formally documenting in writing and in public statements that the preliminary judgment has not been confirmed by detailed analysis, applicable only if Engineer A had been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely.
Counterfactual alternative pathway identified by the BER for the tidal crossing case — not the path taken, but the path that would have been available under different factual circumstances.
The BER's identification of an alternative ethical pathway that would have been available to Engineer A had the professional judgment been that significant impacts were unlikely — proceeding while noting in writing and public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
The BER identifies this as an alternative ethical pathway that was not available to Engineer A given the facts, because Engineer A was not comfortable predicting that significant impacts were unlikely.
Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Obligation
Had Engineer A been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A would have been obligated to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, as the condition for ethically proceeding without the specialized analysis.
At the time of project assessment, if the engineer's professional judgment supported a finding of unlikely significant impacts
Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal Tidal Crossing
If Client B refuses all graduated escalation steps — both the specialized analysis and the written risk report for regulatory submission — Engineer A's continued participation in the project would constitute complicity in suppressing material flood risk information from regulators and the affected community.
Conditional Project Withdrawal After Client Refusal of Safety Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refuses both the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and the proposal to document the flood risk in a written engineering report for regulatory consideration, recognizing that continued participation under those conditions would make Engineer A complicit in the suppression of material public safety risks to twenty upstream homeowners.
Conditionally, after all graduated escalation steps have been refused by Client B
Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Client B Refusal Tidal Crossing
Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis; Engineer A's graduated escalation steps — client discussion and written report proposal — were the prerequisite conditions for withdrawal.
Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis and the opportunity to document the identified flood risk concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration.
Upon Client B's refusal of both graduated escalation options
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A worked for a developer to perform hydrodynamic modeling and coastal risk assessment regarding a proposed residential development... The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Engineer A Conditional Project Withdrawal Tidal Crossing Both Avenues Refused
Withdrawal is the last resort in the graduated escalation sequence after Client B forecloses all avenues for addressing the identified public safety risks to upstream homeowners.
Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refused both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized analysis and the opportunity to submit an engineering report documenting the concern to regulatory agencies.
After Client B refuses both the specialized analysis and the regulatory report proposal
Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Obligation
From the point at which Client B refuses both proposed courses of action, until Engineer A withdraws
Engineer A's ethical position following Client B's refusal of both detailed climate evaluation and disclosure to regulatory agencies
Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
In BER Case 18-9, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project
Client B's refusal to agree to either detailed climate impact evaluation or submission of the concern to regulatory agencies and the public in an engineering report
Engineer A Conditional Withdrawal Trigger Exhaustion Tidal Crossing
The final stage of Engineer A's graduated escalation sequence with Client B, where Client B's refusal of all intermediate options triggered the mandatory withdrawal obligation.
Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project was triggered only after exhausting all graduated engagement steps — including direct client discussion and proposal of regulatory report inclusion — and became ethically mandatory once Client B refused both intermediate options, prohibiting Engineer A from continuing project participation after that point of refusal.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 18-9; Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Following Client B's refusal of both the specialized analysis recommendation and the regulatory report inclusion proposal
Engineer A Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
Domain-Specific Competence Boundary Recognition Capability
Engineer A possessed sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing project raised technical questions requiring specialized subconsultant engagement, even though Engineer A was not required to be a modeling expert.
Engineer A evaluating whether the tidal crossing upgrade's potential upstream flood impacts could be assessed through general engineering judgment or required specialized hydraulic modeling expertise.
Application of cross-disciplinary understanding to recognize that the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of tidal prism changes, sea level rise effects, and upstream flood propagation exceeded the scope of general engineering judgment and required specialized expertise.
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert.
Based on the facts in this case, it is clear that Engineer A has such an understanding of the broad project issues.
However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
Engineer A Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Tidal Crossing
Cross-Disciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade raises technical questions exceeding Engineer A's own modeling expertise and requiring engagement of a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant.
Engineer A determining that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade requires specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and recommending engagement of a specialized subconsultant.
Recognition that the tidal crossing upgrade raises complex hydrodynamic and coastal hydraulic questions — including sea level rise effects, tidal prism changes, and upstream flood propagation — that require specialized modeling expertise beyond Engineer A's general civil engineering competence.
Such judgments increasingly necessitate engineers to have sufficient understanding of related areas of engineering practice and science to determine when more specialized evaluation is needed to assure protection of public health, safety, and welfare.
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering, site analysis', 'firm_role': 'Principal', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 07.6'}
Principal in an environmental engineering firm retained by a developer to analyze a property adjacent to a wetlands area for residential condominium development; received a biologist's report of threat to a bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands; was obligated to include that information in the written report submitted to the public authority and to advise the client of its inclusion.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer Client'}
{'type': 'employer', 'target': 'Environmental Engineering Firm'}
{'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Firm Biologist Specialist'}
{'type': 'regulatory_reporting', 'target': 'Public Authority Considering Developer Proposal'}
Environmental Threat Reporting Design Engineer
Engineer A should have included the information in the written report and advised the client of its inclusion
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
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 Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Upstream Homes
The proposed tidal crossing upgrade benefits the healthcare facility developer while imposing accelerated flood risk on an upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes.
Environmental Justice Risk Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and the applicable regulatory authority that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would disproportionately impose accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability on the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — a specific identifiable community bearing the negative externalities of a development that benefits a different party — including the probability, magnitude, and distributional inequity of that risk.
Upon identifying the disproportionate impact on upstream homeowners, before and during regulatory permitting
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
Engineer A Environmental Justice Upstream Homes Disclosure
Disproportionate Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify and assess whether the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would disproportionately burden the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — a specific residential community — by accelerating their properties' uninhabitability through increased flood risk, and to communicate this disproportionate impact finding to Client B and the applicable regulatory authority
Engineer A identified a specific community of approximately twenty upstream homeowners who would bear disproportionate adverse impacts from the proposed infrastructure upgrade, triggering environmental justice disclosure obligations
Engineer A's identification that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, and the proposal to quantify this impact through specialized subconsultant analysis
the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
Engineer A Evolving Climate Standard Awareness
Evolving Professional Standard Awareness Capability
Engineer A possessed awareness of evolving professional standards for climate-informed infrastructure design — including hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference — and applied this awareness to identify that applicable local regulations had not yet been updated to reflect current climate science
Engineer A's awareness of emerging climate-informed hydraulic evaluation procedures from a professional conference enabled identification of the regulatory gap and the upstream flood risk, demonstrating advanced capability to track and apply evolving professional standards
Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to form a professional judgment about upstream uninhabitability risk, demonstrating awareness of emerging professional standards beyond current regulatory requirements
The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns
Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Client B Tidal Crossing
Engineer A identified a foreseeable risk to project success and third-party welfare from proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis, and Client B directed Engineer A to forgo that analysis.
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Without Investigation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates a foreseeable risk that the project will not be successful — specifically that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes and create regulatory and legal exposure — while recognizing that this notification duty does not extend to an obligation to conduct the specialized analysis without Client B's authorization.
Engineer A Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Tidal Crossing
Faithful Agent Written Risk Notification Scope Calibration Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to correctly calibrate the faithful agent obligation triggered by Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis — recognizing that the duty extends to advising Client B in writing of the foreseeable risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, without expanding the contracted scope to independently conduct the analysis
Engineer A's obligation to provide written risk notification to Client B was triggered by Client B's directive to forgo the recommended analysis; the capability to correctly scope this notification — advising of risk without overstepping contracted scope — is required for ethical compliance
Engineer A's identification of the upstream flood risk and proposal for specialized analysis, which established the factual predicate for a written risk notification to Client B upon Client B's override directive
Engineer A Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Tidal Crossing
Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis, and Engineer A must formally document in writing that this approach will not achieve the project's public safety objectives with respect to upstream flood risk.
Formal Client Project Failure Risk Notification Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to formally advise Client B in writing that, in Engineer A's professional judgment, proceeding without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis will result in a project that fails to protect the public from material flood risk to twenty upstream homes, so that Client B has clear written notice of Engineer A's professional assessment.
Upon Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and before proceeding with design and permitting
Engineer A Formal Written Project Failure Risk Advisory Tidal Crossing
Formal Written Project Failure Risk Advisory Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to formally advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis creates a material risk that the project will fail — including regulatory rejection at public hearings — and to communicate this advisory with sufficient professional authority to enable Client B to make a genuinely informed decision.
Formal written advisory to Client B after Client B's direction to proceed without the specialized analysis.
Engineer A's obligation to formally advise Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized analysis risks project failure, particularly given the anticipated difficulty of answering upstream flood risk questions at public hearings.
Engineer A Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to pursue a graduated sequence of client engagement steps before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project — first engaging Client B in substantive discussion about the need for specialized analysis and disclosure, then proposing submission of a concern report to regulatory agencies, and only withdrawing after both intermediate options were refused.
Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize recommended specialized hydraulic analysis for the tidal crossing project, required to exhaust intermediate escalation options before withdrawing.
The BER's determination that Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions, then propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate step, and only withdraw if Client B refused both courses of action — demonstrating the graduated nature of the required escalation sequence.
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would materially accelerate flood risk for approximately twenty upstream homes; Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities.
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps with Client B — first engaging in substantive discussion about the need for specialized hydraulic analysis and public disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project.
Upon Client B's refusal to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Navigation Tidal Crossing Client B
Engineer A possesses the capability to navigate a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then, if Client B remains unconvinced, proposing to submit a concern report to regulatory agencies; and only withdrawing from the project if Client B refuses both courses of action.
Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for the tidal crossing upgrade.
The BER's prescribed three-step escalation sequence: (1) engage Client B in discussions about need for evaluation and disclosure; (2) propose submission of concern report to regulatory agencies; (3) withdraw if both options refused.
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must pursue graduated escalation before withdrawal is warranted.
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies and the public; and only withdrawing if Client B refuses both courses of action.
After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis
Engineer A Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Qualified Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's professional judgment — grounded in transportation agency conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis — that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions.
Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint
Engineer A was required to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, while simultaneously qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary judgment requiring more detailed evaluation to confirm — and was prohibited from either remaining silent about the gray area risk or overstating it as an established finding, given that the risk had not yet been confirmed by specialized analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint; BER Case 07-6
That obligation leads to not uncommon 'gray areas' in practice requiring judgment as to what issues potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare merit more detailed evaluation and what issues do not.
Throughout client engagement and any regulatory submissions during the tidal crossing project
Engineer A Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's risk assessment was based on professional judgment applying conference-presented hydraulic procedures rather than confirmed quantitative analysis, placing the situation in a gray area requiring documented professional judgment.
Gray Area Public Welfare Judgment Documentation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to document their professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit detailed specialized evaluation — including the basis for that judgment — both in writing and in public statements, so that the reasoning was transparent to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the public.
Upon forming the professional judgment that specialized analysis was warranted
Engineer A Gray Area Public Welfare Threshold Judgment Tidal Crossing
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer A possessed the capability to exercise professional judgment in the gray area situation presented by the tidal crossing project — recognizing that the potential for upstream flooding was sufficiently likely and significant to merit detailed evaluation rather than proceeding with only a noted caveat, and calibrating the escalation response accordingly.
Engineer A assessing whether the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade rose to the threshold requiring detailed evaluation, specialized subconsultant engagement, and client escalation.
Professional judgment that the potential for flooding of upstream properties was sufficient to require specialized hydraulic analysis rather than proceeding on the basis that significant impacts were unlikely, distinguishing this case from one where proceeding with written caveats would have been ethically permissible.
Engineer A Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition Tidal Crossing
Engineer A is designing a roadway upgrade including a culvert-to-bridge tidal crossing upgrade in a tidal saltmarsh; the upgrade will materially increase hydraulic capacity with potential upstream flood impacts on twenty homes.
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Recognition for Specialized Referral Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to maintain sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing upgrade raised technical questions about upstream flood impacts that merited detailed specialized evaluation, even though Engineer A is not a modeling expert.
At the time of project assessment and throughout the design engagement
Engineer A Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's professional engagement on the tidal crossing upgrade, where Engineer A possessed sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding to recognize the need for specialized hydraulic analysis even without being a modeling specialist.
Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral Constraint
Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, was constrained by the threshold competence they possessed in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit specialized evaluation — and was prohibited from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on that threshold judgment.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures; Professional Competence Standard
Engineer A Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition Hydraulic Referral Tidal Crossing
Engineer A, while not a hydrodynamic modeling specialist, possessed sufficient understanding of hydraulics and coastal engineering to judge that the tidal crossing upgrade posed material upstream flood risk requiring specialized analysis.
Interdisciplinary Threshold Recognition for Specialized Hydraulic Referral Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to apply sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade created sufficient potential for flooding of upstream properties to merit detailed specialized evaluation — and upon forming that judgment, to recommend engagement of a specialized subconsultant.
Upon identifying the potential upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Tidal Crossing
Law-Bounded Obligation Non-Limitation Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare in the tidal crossing project is not bounded by the applicable 25-year storm regulatory standard or other legal requirements, and that ethical obligations require evaluation of climate-related flood risks to upstream homes regardless of whether such evaluation is legally mandated.
Engineer A designing culvert-to-bridge tidal crossing upgrade for Client B's healthcare facility access road, identifying upstream flood risk to twenty homes not addressed by applicable regulatory standards.
Recognition that the tidal crossing upgrade raises public welfare obligations exceeding the local 25-year storm regulatory standard, leading to recommendation of specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis not required by applicable regulations.
That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
Engineer A Low Probability High Consequence Upstream Flood Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions, where the risk had not yet been confirmed by specialized analysis.
Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A was prohibited from omitting or minimizing the upstream flood risk to approximately twenty homes on the basis that the risk was not yet confirmed by specialized analysis — given that the foreseeable consequence of accelerated uninhabitability of residential properties constituted a high-consequence outcome that required disclosure regardless of the preliminary nature of the probability assessment.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Low-Probability High-Consequence Risk Disclosure Constraint
However, with the facts as presented, Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public.
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client B Safety Analysis Suppression
Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly specialized hydraulic analysis, which Engineer A had identified as necessary to assess foreseeable risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refuse to simply acquiesce to Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis without formally objecting in writing, documenting the professional recommendation, and evaluating whether the public welfare risk requires escalation beyond the client relationship to regulatory authorities or upstream homeowners.
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Client Safety Analysis Suppression
Economic Pressure Resistance in Contract Acceptance Capability
Engineer A was obligated to resist Client B's directive to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis by formally objecting to the directive rather than simply acquiescing, demonstrating the capability to resist client pressure to suppress a recommended safety analysis
Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis constituted client pressure to suppress a recommended safety analysis; Engineer A's obligation to formally object rather than acquiesce required the capability to resist this client pressure
The case facts establish that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the costly analysis, creating the ethical obligation for Engineer A to formally object rather than acquiesce; whether Engineer A exercised this capability is not confirmed in the case facts
Engineer A Objective Truthful Reporting Bird Species BER Case 07.6
Engineer A's firm biologist reported that the condominium project could threaten a 'threatened species' inhabiting adjacent protected wetlands; the public authority considering the developer's proposal would reasonably be interested in this information.
Engineer A was obligated to include information about the threat to the bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and to advise the client of its inclusion, notwithstanding the client's potential preference to omit the information.
Upon receipt of the biologist's report about the threatened bird species
Engineer A Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Tidal Crossing
Post-Client-Override Regulatory Escalation Assessment Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to assess whether the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes is sufficiently serious to require escalation to regulatory authorities without Client B's authorization, evaluating the gravity of the potential danger against the threshold for mandatory disclosure.
Client B's refusal to authorize safety analysis requiring Engineer A to assess whether independent regulatory escalation is required.
Engineer A's obligation to evaluate whether the identified upstream flood risk — potentially rendering homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier — meets the threshold for proactive regulatory disclosure without client authorization.
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Disclosure Client B Upstream Risk
Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional judgment based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from a completed specialized analysis.
Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the proposed project may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, while clearly qualifying that this judgment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference rather than a completed specialized hydraulic analysis, and that the specialized analysis is needed to confirm and quantify the risk.
Upon forming the preliminary professional judgment, before and during client communications about the proposed analysis
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure
Engineer A possessed the capability to distinguish between the preliminary professional judgment that the project may accelerate upstream uninhabitability — which requires qualified disclosure — and a confirmed quantitative finding that would require more definitive reporting, and to disclose the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification as to its basis and confidence level
Engineer A correctly framed the upstream risk as a professional judgment rather than a confirmed finding, demonstrating the threshold discrimination capability; the obligation to disclose this qualified judgment to Client B and relevant parties was triggered by the preliminary finding
Engineer A's characterization of the upstream risk as a professional judgment based on conference-presented evaluation procedures, rather than as a confirmed finding, indicating awareness of the preliminary nature of the assessment
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream flooding in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, identifies the additional specialized analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and ensures the disclosure is neither overstated nor understated.
Engineer A disclosing preliminary flood risk findings to Client B while recommending specialized analysis for confirmation.
Engineer A's communication to Client B and relevant parties of the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes, qualified as a preliminary judgment requiring specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis for confirmation.
Engineer A Preliminary Judgment Risk Disclosure Qualification Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's risk assessment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference rather than a completed specialized hydrologic and hydraulic study, and Engineer A must disclose the risk while accurately characterizing the preliminary nature of the finding.
Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and relevant parties the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability by a decade or more, while clearly qualifying that this judgment is based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a conference rather than a completed specialized analysis, so that recipients understand both the risk and the basis and limitations of the assessment.
Upon formation of the preliminary professional judgment and before proceeding with design and permitting
Engineer A Preliminary Professional Judgment Qualified Risk Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Engineer A possesses the capability to disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability in a manner that accurately qualifies the preliminary nature of the finding, identifies the additional specialized analysis needed to confirm or refute the risk, and avoids both overstating and understating the identified risk.
Preliminary risk identification requiring qualified disclosure to client and regulatory authorities before specialized analysis is conducted.
Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent conference, that the project 'may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case' — a qualified preliminary finding that prompted the proposal for specialized analysis.
Engineer A Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Tidal Crossing
Proactive Design Alternatives Exploration Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to proactively explore and evaluate alternative design approaches for the tidal crossing upgrade that might mitigate the potential upstream flood impacts, and to present those alternatives to Client B as part of the graduated escalation discussions.
Engineer A exploring design alternatives to mitigate upstream flood risk as part of client engagement discussions.
BER direction that Engineer A engage Client B in discussions about 'alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts' as part of the graduated escalation sequence.
Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Tidal Crossing
Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize when continued work on the tidal crossing project — after Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and regulatory disclosure — would constitute ethical acquiescence to a client override of public safety requirements, and to withdraw from the project rather than proceeding under those conditions.
Conditional project withdrawal after Client B's refusal of safety disclosure and specialized analysis authorization.
Engineer A's conditional obligation to withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis and the proposal to submit a concern report to regulatory authorities.
Engineer A Professional Withdrawal Decision Tidal Crossing Last Resort
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize when continued work on the tidal crossing project — after Client B has refused both the specialized analysis and the regulatory report submission — would constitute ethical acquiescence to a client's override of public safety requirements, and to act on that recognition by withdrawing from the project.
Engineer A's obligation to withdraw from the tidal crossing project as a last resort after exhausting graduated escalation options with Client B.
BER conclusion that Engineer A should withdraw from the tidal crossing project if Client B refuses both the opportunity to conduct the recommended specialized analysis and the proposal to submit a concern report to regulatory agencies.
In BER Case 18-9 ... The BER concluded that Engineer A should continue to attempt to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public, and, failing agreement on Engineer A's proposed design standard, Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Engineer A Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Tidal Crossing
Engineer A anticipates that the flood risk to upstream homes will be a difficult question to answer in public hearings, and Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the analysis needed to answer it — creating a foreseeable information gap in the regulatory process.
Public Hearing Climate Risk Information Gap Remediation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to ensure that the public regulatory hearing process for the tidal crossing upgrade is not conducted with a foreseeable and preventable climate risk information gap regarding flood impacts on upstream homeowners, either by obtaining Client B's authorization for the specialized analysis, proposing a written risk disclosure report for regulatory consideration, or escalating to regulatory authorities independently if those avenues are foreclosed.
Before and during the public hearing process for the tidal crossing upgrade permit
Engineer A Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Upstream Flood Risk
Engineer A anticipated that the upstream flood risk question would be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings, and Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis needed to answer it.
Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, when providing engineering input at the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade, to address completely the upstream flood risk to the twenty homes — including the preliminary professional judgment about accelerated uninhabitability — and to either explain how the risk has been evaluated and addressed or to offer to conduct the specialized hydraulic analysis, rather than redirecting conversation away from the upstream risk issue.
During public regulatory hearings for the tidal crossing upgrade permitting
Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Obligation Beyond Regulatory Compliance Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's design of a tidal crossing upgrade where compliance with the locally required 25-year storm standard did not address foreseeable climate-driven flood risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare was not bounded by compliance with the applicable 25-year fresh-water storm design standard — constraining Engineer A from treating regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of professional obligations when professional judgment indicated that the regulatory standard was climatically inadequate to protect upstream homeowners.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 18-9; BER Case 07-6
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramount Gray Area Climate Change Tidal Crossing
The applicable local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects; Engineer A's public welfare obligation extended beyond regulatory compliance to encompass climate-driven risks.
Engineer A was obligated to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of the approximately twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood risk — regardless of whether applicable law or regulations required such consideration, and to address the impacts of the tidal crossing project on public welfare even in the absence of explicit regulatory mandates.
Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Tidal Crossing
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize that the primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare — including the welfare of twenty upstream homeowners — must be held paramount over Client B's cost-reduction directives and project schedule preferences.
Engineer A navigating Client B's refusal to authorize recommended safety analysis for tidal crossing upgrade affecting upstream residential properties.
Refusal to subordinate the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and willingness to withdraw from the project if Client B refuses both the analysis and regulatory report submission.
Engineer A Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Insufficiency Disclosure Tidal Crossing
Engineer A has identified that the local regulatory standard does not capture the dynamic trajectory of sea level rise and changing storm patterns, and that designing to the regulatory minimum will not adequately protect upstream homeowners from accelerated flood risk.
Regulatory-Minimum-Only Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Disclosure Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to disclose to Client B and to applicable regulatory authorities that compliance with the 25-year storm standard based on historical data is insufficient to protect public health, safety, and welfare given current climate science, and to recommend design standards or analyses that go beyond the regulatory minimum.
Before submitting permit applications and before public hearings on the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Regulatory-Minimum Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Recognition Tidal Crossing
Regulatory-Minimum Compliance Public Safety Insufficiency Recognition Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to recognize and disclose that compliance with the 25-year storm standard based on historical data is insufficient to protect public safety given current climate science, and to communicate this insufficiency to Client B and applicable regulatory authorities.
Regulatory compliance gap identification in tidal crossing design where current standards do not reflect climate change.
Engineer A's recognition that the local 25-year storm standard and historical data assumptions do not capture the actual risk posed by sea level rise and changing precipitation patterns, and the obligation to disclose this insufficiency even though the regulatory standard has not been formally updated.
Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Assessment
Engineer A possessed the capability to assess whether Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis — combined with the preliminary professional judgment that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable — triggered an obligation to proactively disclose the identified risk to the applicable regulatory authority without client authorization
Engineer A's obligation to evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure was required arose from the combination of the identified upstream flood risk and Client B's override directive; this capability is required to correctly navigate the tension between faithful agent duties and paramount public welfare obligations
The case facts establish that Engineer A identified a material risk to public welfare and that Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the analysis needed to quantify it, creating the factual predicate for Engineer A to assess whether regulatory escalation was required
Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Upstream Flood Risk
Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities, but Engineer A's professional judgment indicates material risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority, independent of Client B's authorization, and to make such disclosure if the risk threshold warrants it — particularly given that Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the analysis needed to quantify the risk.
Upon determining that the preliminary risk finding warrants regulatory disclosure notwithstanding Client B's directive
Engineer A Regulatory Authority Proactive Risk Disclosure Without Client Authorization Tidal Crossing
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis; Engineer A must evaluate whether the identified risk to twenty upstream homes warrants independent regulatory disclosure notwithstanding Client B's directive.
Engineer A is obligated to evaluate whether the preliminary finding of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes is sufficiently serious to require proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority independent of Client B's authorization, recognizing that the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare may require disclosure to regulators even though Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis.
After Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted or refused
Engineer A Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal Intermediate Step Tidal Crossing
The graduated escalation sequence required of Engineer A following Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of upstream flood risk.
Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation Constraint
Engineer A was required, as a mandatory intermediate escalation step before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project, to propose to Client B that Engineer A's professional concern about upstream flood risk be included in an engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies and the public for consideration — and was prohibited from treating Client B's refusal of specialized analysis as a direct trigger for immediate withdrawal without first offering this intermediate disclosure pathway.
After Client B's refusal of specialized analysis recommendation and before project withdrawal
Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Escalation Step Tidal Crossing
Regulatory Report Submission Escalation Step Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to identify and propose, as an intermediate graduated escalation step after Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis, that Engineer A submit a concern report directly to the applicable regulatory authority — informing the authority of the identified upstream flood risk so that the authority can independently determine whether to require the analysis.
Graduated escalation sequence after Client B's refusal to authorize specialized analysis, before considering project withdrawal.
Engineer A's obligation to propose regulatory report submission to Client B as an intermediate step between client engagement and project withdrawal, fulfilling the disclosure obligation while preserving the client relationship as long as possible.
Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Client B Tidal Crossing
Client B refused to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis; Engineer A's graduated escalation required proposing written documentation of the concern for regulatory submission before withdrawing from the project.
Regulatory Report Submission Proposal as Escalation Step Obligation
Engineer A was obligated, as an intermediate escalation step after Client B refused to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk concern in a written engineering report for submission to and consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
After Client B's refusal of the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis and before project withdrawal
Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Escalation Step Tidal Crossing
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to propose, as an intermediate escalation step after Client B's initial refusal, that Engineer A submit a concern report to regulatory agencies and the public — recognizing this as a professionally appropriate intermediate option between continued acquiescence and full project withdrawal.
Engineer A pursuing graduated escalation with Client B after initial refusal to authorize specialized hydraulic analysis, proposing regulatory report submission as an intermediate step before withdrawal.
The BER's determination that Engineer A should propose regulatory report submission as an intermediate escalation step before withdrawing, demonstrating the capability to identify and propose regulatory escalation as a client-facing intermediate option.
Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Escalation Tidal Crossing
Client B has refused to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must propose the intermediate escalation step of a written risk report for regulatory submission before considering withdrawal.
Engineer A is obligated, as a graduated escalation step after Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified upstream flood risk in a written engineering report for submission to and consideration by the applicable regulatory authorities and the public during the permitting process.
After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized analysis and before any decision to withdraw from the project
Engineer A Regulatory Report Submission Proposal Tidal Crossing Escalation
As the second step in the graduated escalation sequence, after Client B refuses to authorize the specialized analysis, Engineer A must propose the regulatory report pathway before withdrawal.
Engineer A was obligated, if Client B remained unconvinced after initial engagement, to propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified public health, safety, and welfare concern in an engineering report for submission to and consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
After Client B's refusal of the initial engagement discussions, before withdrawal
Engineer A Regulatory Standard Climate Gap
Throughout Engineer A's engagement on the project
Engineer A's project context in which applicable local regulations have not been updated to reflect current climate science regarding sea level rise, altered precipitation, and storm recurrence
Not terminated within the case — persists as the regulatory context constraining Engineer A's options
Considering the effects of climate change in engineering planning and design adds substantial complexity to engineering decision-making as engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare
That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly
Engineer A's recognition that applicable law does not require the climate-forward analysis that professional judgment indicates is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare
Engineer A Sea Level Rise Infrastructure Design Integration Tidal Crossing
Sea Level Rise Infrastructure Design Integration Capability
Engineer A possesses the technical capability to integrate sea level rise projections and updated precipitation intensity data into the tidal crossing design analysis, applying emerging evaluation procedures from professional conferences to assess whether the regulatory-compliant design is adequate under projected future conditions.
Tidal crossing design requiring integration of sea level rise and climate change projections beyond regulatory minimum requirements.
Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the interaction of sea level rise with the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing and its effects on upstream flood risk.
Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation
Engineer A recognized that the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis required to quantify upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade exceeded the scope of routine design work and required engagement of a specialized subconsultant, demonstrating capability to identify the boundary of their own competence and recommend appropriate specialized expertise
Engineer A correctly identified that the tidal hydraulic analysis was sufficiently complex and specialized to require a dedicated subconsultant, and formally proposed this to Client B before Client B directed otherwise
Engineer A's proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant for the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis rather than attempting to perform it within the existing scope
Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Tidal Crossing
Engineer A has proposed a specialized subconsultant to conduct complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis predicting flood damage to twenty upstream homes, but Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the analysis unless regulators request it.
Specialized Subconsultant Engagement Recommendation Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to formally recommend in writing to Client B the engagement of a specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant to conduct the complex analysis needed to predict flood damage to upstream homes, and to document that recommendation so that Client B cannot later claim ignorance of the technical gap.
Before proceeding with design and permitting without the specialized analysis
Engineer A Specialized Subconsultant Hydraulic Analysis Recommendation Client B
Engineer A identified that the upstream flood risk question exceeded available analytical tools and proposed a specialized subconsultant engagement, which Client B directed be foregone unless requested by regulatory authorities.
Engineer A was obligated to formally recommend to Client B the engagement of a specialized subconsultant to perform the complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis needed to quantify the upstream flood risk from sea level rise and increased tidal crossing hydraulic capacity, and to document that recommendation in writing.
Upon identifying the need for specialized hydraulic analysis, before proceeding with design
Engineer A Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
Engineer A has identified through professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes, but Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis that would quantify this risk.
Third-Party Upstream Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to notify the twenty upstream homeowners in writing of the identified risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate their homes' uninhabitability by a decade or more, based on Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment, so that they can take protective action and participate meaningfully in regulatory proceedings.
Upon Engineer A's formation of the preliminary professional judgment regarding upstream flood risk, and before or during the public hearing process
Engineer A Third Party Upstream Flood Risk Notification Twenty Homes
Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would increase hydraulic capacity in a way that, combined with sea level rise, would accelerate flood risk to approximately twenty upstream homes.
Engineer A was obligated to notify the approximately twenty upstream homeowners — and/or the applicable regulatory authority — that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may result in their homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, based on Engineer A's professional judgment derived from hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference.
Upon forming the professional judgment that upstream homes face accelerated uninhabitability risk, and before or during the regulatory permitting process
{'license': 'Professional Engineer (consulting)', 'specialty': 'Hydraulic and roadway infrastructure design', 'knowledge_basis': 'Hydraulic evaluation procedures from recent transportation agency conference', 'professional_judgment': 'Proposed project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise'}
Consulting engineer retained by Client B to design and permit a roadway upgrade including a tidal crossing bridge replacement; identified climate-change-driven upstream flood risk; proposed specialized subconsultant analysis; directed by client to forgo the analysis absent regulatory requirement.
{'type': 'public_responsibility_toward', 'target': 'Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community'}
{'type': 'regulatory_interface', 'target': 'Local Permitting Regulatory Authority'}
{'type': 'serves_client', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer'}
Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer
Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge
It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier
Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic Analysis Capability
Engineer A possessed sufficient tidal hydraulic and hydrologic analysis capability to recognize that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause upstream flood damage, and to propose a specialized subconsultant analysis to quantify the risk
Engineer A identified the upstream flood risk through professional judgment but recognized the need for specialized subconsultant expertise to perform the full quantitative analysis, indicating intermediate rather than expert proficiency in this specialized domain
Engineer A's proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant for complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of sea level rise and tidal crossing capacity effects on upstream homes
Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
The upgrade from culvert to bridge increases hydraulic capacity, which Engineer A's professional judgment indicates will materially accelerate flood risk and uninhabitability for twenty upstream homes — a third-party impact not addressed by the local 25-year storm standard.
Tidal Hydraulic Capacity Upgrade Third-Party Flood Impact Assessment Obligation
Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the potential upstream flood impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases the tidal crossing's hydraulic capacity — on the twenty upstream homes, including the risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to increased tidal and storm surge penetration, even though such assessment is not explicitly required by local development regulations.
During the design phase and before submission of permit applications
Engineer A Tidal Hydraulic and Hydrologic Analysis Tidal Crossing
Engineer A possesses sufficient tidal hydraulic and hydrologic analysis capability to recognize the need for complex analysis of sea level rise effects, tidal prism changes, and upstream flood propagation resulting from the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing, and to specify the scope of specialized subconsultant analysis required.
Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade requiring assessment of sea level rise and upstream flood impacts.
Engineer A's proposal of a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict flood damage to upstream homes from sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity during future high tides and storm surges.
Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment
Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Capability
Engineer A, as the design and permitting engineer for a roadway crossing a tidal saltmarsh, possessed the capability to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of replacing a small culvert with a small bridge on the tidal saltmarsh environment
Engineer A's scope explicitly included local permitting of the tidal crossing, which requires assessment of saltmarsh impacts; the degree to which Engineer A fully exercised this capability is not fully established in the case facts
Engineer A's scope of work included design and local permitting of the tidal crossing upgrade, requiring assessment of impacts on the tidal saltmarsh for regulatory permitting purposes
Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
Engineer A possesses the capability to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, including changes to tidal prism, saltmarsh hydrology, and sensitive estuarine habitat, as part of the design and local permitting scope.
Tidal crossing upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh requiring environmental impact assessment for local permitting.
Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway upgrade across a tidal saltmarsh, requiring assessment of environmental impacts of the tidal crossing modification.
Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Constraint Tidal Crossing
The tidal saltmarsh environment crossed by the access road, subject to sea level rise, storm surge, and tidal dynamics, requiring assessment beyond the minimum regulatory standard.
Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
Engineer A was constrained from treating local development regulation compliance as a complete discharge of environmental impact assessment obligations for the tidal crossing upgrade, given the ecological sensitivity of the tidal saltmarsh crossed by the access road and its vulnerability to sea level rise and storm surge under projected climate conditions.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint; Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design Constraint
Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of a roadway upgrade including a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of hydraulic and ecological impacts.
Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade — including the replacement of a small culvert with a small bridge increasing hydraulic capacity — on the tidal saltmarsh ecosystem, including effects on tidal flow patterns, saltwater intrusion, and marsh integrity.
During design and permitting phases of the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh Environmental Impact Assessment Tidal Crossing
The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations regarding the ecological integrity of the saltmarsh, in addition to the flood risk obligations regarding upstream homeowners.
Engineer A is obligated to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, including the effects of increased hydraulic capacity on tidal flow patterns, saltwater intrusion, and marsh ecosystem integrity, as part of the design and permitting process.
During the design and local permitting process for the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Upstream Third-Party Flood Risk Identification Tidal Crossing
Engineer A possesses the technical capability to identify, through professional judgment and emerging hydraulic evaluation procedures, that the proposed culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing — may accelerate flood risk to twenty upstream homes by altering tidal prism dynamics and storm surge propagation.
Tidal crossing upgrade design identifying third-party flood risk to upstream residential community.
Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise.
Engineer A Upstream Third Party Flood Risk Identification
Engineer A possessed the capability to identify, through professional judgment, that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge would increase hydraulic capacity in a manner that may accelerate upstream flood risk to approximately twenty homes, rendering them uninhabitable earlier than would otherwise be the case
Engineer A applied emerging hydraulic evaluation procedures to identify a third-party upstream flood risk that was not required to be analyzed under local regulations, demonstrating advanced capability to identify impacts beyond regulatory scope
Engineer A's professional judgment that the project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier, and the proposal to engage a specialized subconsultant to quantify this risk
Engineer A Withdrawal After Owner Refusal BER Case 18-9
Engineer A advocated for design to the 100-year storm surge elevation based on newly identified historic weather data and public safety risks; the owner refused to agree that such protection was required or appropriate.
Engineer A was obligated to withdraw from the residential development project after the owner refused to agree to design the project for the then-projected 100-year storm surge elevation, following Engineer A's continued attempts to convince the owner of the potential for damage to future residents and the public.
After exhausting attempts to convince the owner of the need for the higher design standard
Engineer A Written Report Completeness Bird Species BER Case 07-6 Analogy
The analogy drawn in the case discussion between BER Case 07-6 (threatened bird species disclosure) and Engineer A's obligation to disclose upstream flood risk concerns in regulatory submissions.
By analogy to BER Case 07-6, Engineer A was constrained from omitting the identified upstream flood risk concern from any written report submitted to public regulatory authorities considering the tidal crossing upgrade — even if Client B preferred that the concern not be disclosed — on the grounds that regulatory authorities would reasonably be interested in this information.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.3; BER Case 07-6
At the time of any written report or regulatory submission related to the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A Written Third-Party Safety Notification Upstream Homeowners Tidal Crossing
Written Third-Party Safety Notification Capability
Engineer A possesses the capability to notify the twenty upstream homeowners in writing of the identified risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of their homes, ensuring that the at-risk community has documented, actionable safety information sufficient to take protective measures.
Third-party flood risk notification obligation to twenty upstream homes identified as potentially affected by the tidal crossing upgrade.
Engineer A's obligation to notify upstream homeowners of the flood risk identified through preliminary professional judgment, even though those homeowners are third parties not in a contractual relationship with Engineer A.
Engineer A engaging Client B in discussions before Engineer A proposing an engineering report to regulatory agencies
Engineer A proposing engineering report to regulatory agencies before Engineer A withdrawing from the project
Engineer A's engagement with Client B about detailed evaluation before Engineer A's withdrawal from project
Engineer A's proposal for specialized analysis before Client B's directive to proceed without analysis
Engineer Dissent Framework - Withdrawal from Climate Risk Project
Professional Ethics Framework for Engineer Withdrawal from Projects with Unresolved Safety Risks
BER in determining the ultimate ethical obligation of Engineer A when client agreement cannot be reached
Establishes that Engineer A must withdraw from the project if Client B refuses to authorize detailed climate impact evaluation or to allow disclosure of potential flooding concerns to regulatory agencies and the public, consistent with the precedent established in BER Case 18-9
Engineer Ethical Obligation Crystallized
Engineer Public Safety Escalation and Withdrawal Standard
Engineer Public Safety Escalation Standard
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
Engineer A in determining the sequence of escalation steps when client refuses to act on safety concerns
Governs Engineer A's obligation to escalate public safety concerns to Client B, propose disclosure to regulatory agencies, and ultimately withdraw from the project if Client B refuses to address climate-related flooding risks
Environmental Hazard - Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing
Throughout project design, permitting, and operational life
a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
The tidal saltmarsh crossed by the access road, subject to sea level rise and storm surge impacts
Project abandonment or adequate environmental and hydraulic mitigation
the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
Project siting requiring a tidal crossing upgrade in a saltmarsh environment subject to sea level rise and intensified storm events
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Saltmarsh
Engineer A's design work involves upgrading a tidal crossing through a tidal saltmarsh, requiring consideration of the hydraulic and ecological impacts of increasing the crossing's hydraulic capacity on the saltmarsh system and upstream hydrological conditions
In this context, environmental stewardship requires Engineer A to assess the ecological and hydraulic impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade on the saltmarsh system and to recommend design alternatives that minimize those impacts, including impacts on upstream flood risk
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility that requires a significant upgrade to the property's access road that crosses a tidal saltmarsh
Environmental stewardship obligations reinforce rather than conflict with the public welfare obligation in this case, as both require assessment of the hydraulic impacts of the tidal crossing upgrade
Engineer A's scope includes design and local permitting of the roadway, including an upgrade of the tidal crossing from a small culvert to a small bridge, increasing its hydraulic capacity
Environmental Stewardship Invoked in Tidal Saltmarsh Crossing Design
Regulatory compliance as sufficient defense
The tidal crossing upgrade from culvert to bridge in a tidal saltmarsh implicates environmental stewardship obligations, including consideration of hydrological impacts on the saltmarsh ecosystem and upstream watershed from increased hydraulic capacity.
In this context, environmental stewardship requires Engineer A to assess not only the direct design impacts on the saltmarsh but also the upstream hydrological consequences of increased hydraulic capacity for the coastal watershed.
Environmental stewardship reinforces the obligation to conduct the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by situating the upstream flood risk within the broader context of coastal ecosystem management.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Obligation to address climate change impacts on tidal crossing flooding risk
Relationship between legal compliance and ethical obligation
The BER explicitly holds that Engineer A's ethical obligation to address climate change impacts on public health, safety, and welfare exists 'regardless of whether or not that is required by applicable law' — affirming that the professional ethics code imposes obligations that exceed legal and regulatory minimums.
In this context, the higher standard principle establishes that legal compliance with applicable permitting requirements does not exhaust Engineer A's ethical obligations; the ethics code independently requires Engineer A to address reasonably likely and significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts.
Ethics Code as Higher Standard Than Legal Minimum
Ethics code higher standard principle overrides client reliance on legal compliance as a defense; Engineer A must meet the ethics code standard even when law does not require the same conduct.
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Invoked By Engineer A Preliminary Judgment
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
Engineer A's risk assessment is characterized as a professional 'judgment' based on conference-presented procedures rather than a confirmed finding from completed specialized analysis, requiring Engineer A to disclose the identified risk with appropriate qualification as a preliminary assessment while recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it
In this context, fact-based disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to communicate the preliminary risk assessment to Client B and the regulatory authority with appropriate epistemic qualification — as a professional judgment requiring confirmation through specialized analysis — rather than either suppressing the concern or asserting it as a confirmed finding
Fact-based disclosure obligation and proactive risk disclosure are reconciled by disclosing the preliminary judgment with appropriate qualification and recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute it
Faithful Agent Constraint - Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B constrains the manner and sequence in which Engineer A may disclose upstream flood risk to regulatory authorities and affected parties, requiring formal objection and documentation before unilateral disclosure.
Engineer A is constrained by the faithful agent obligation to Client B — requiring that Engineer A act as a faithful agent and trustee in professional matters — which limits Engineer A's ability to take unilateral actions adverse to Client B's interests, including proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities or upstream homeowners without first formally objecting to Client B and seeking Client B's concurrence, except where public safety obligations override the faithful agent constraint.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section II.4; faithful agent provisions
Engineer A is a consulting engineer representing Client B, a developer who is proposing to develop a health care facility
Throughout the consulting engagement with Client B
Faithful Agent Notification Invoked By Engineer A Client B
Public hearing process for development permit
Engineer A's faithful agent obligation to Client B requires advising Client B in writing that proceeding without the specialized hydraulic analysis creates regulatory, legal, and reputational risks for the developer — including the risk that the upstream flood risk will become a contested issue in public hearings that could delay or defeat the project
In this context, the faithful agent notification obligation requires Engineer A to advise Client B that the decision to forgo specialized analysis is not merely an ethical risk but a project success risk, because the upstream flood risk is 'anticipated to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings'
Faithful Agent Notification Obligation for Project Success Risk
The faithful agent obligation encompasses advising clients of risks to project success, including regulatory and public hearing risks arising from inadequate safety analysis; this obligation aligns with rather than conflicts with the public welfare obligation in this case
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Tidal crossing design engagement with Client B
The BER's structured escalation pathway — engage Client B, propose regulatory report, withdraw — operationalizes the faithful agent principle: Engineer A must serve Client B's legitimate interests diligently while retaining the authority and obligation to escalate or withdraw when Client B's direction conflicts with public welfare obligations.
In this context, the faithful agent principle requires Engineer A to first engage Client B in good faith discussions about the need for specialized analysis before escalating — preserving the client relationship to the extent possible while retaining the independent professional obligation to protect the public.
Faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare paramount when Client B refuses both analysis and regulatory disclosure; Engineer A must withdraw rather than continue serving a client whose direction conflicts with public protection obligations.
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Tested by Client B's Directive
Engineer A is Client B's faithful agent for the roadway design engagement, obligated to execute Client B's project diligently; however, Client B's directive to forgo safety analysis tests the ethical limits of that agency, requiring Engineer A to determine whether compliance would cross into ethical violation.
In this context, the principle permits Engineer A to respect Client B's business decisions within ethical limits but prohibits acquiescence to directives that suppress safety-critical analysis.
The ethical limits of faithful agency are reached when the client's directive would suppress analysis the engineer has determined is necessary to characterize material public risk.
Flood Risk Discovered (Event 2) → Propose Specialized Flood Analysis (Action 3)
Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase
From Engineer A's professional assessment of the flooding risk through resolution of the project
Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase State
The foreseeable risk of flooding damage to upstream or downstream third-party residential properties resulting from the proposed hydraulic capacity increase at the tidal crossing
Completion of detailed climate impact evaluation confirming or refuting the risk, or Engineer A's withdrawal from the project
Engineer A's professional evaluation identifying sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions under projected climate change
Foreseeable Third-Party Flooding Harm — Engineer A Coastal Project
Active from Engineer A's identification of the potential flooding risk; persists until detailed evaluation is conducted or project is redesigned/withdrawn
sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
The foreseeable flooding risk to neighboring/third-party properties arising from Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project design
Completion of detailed hydraulic/coastal modeling evaluation confirming or refuting the risk, or project withdrawal
Engineer A's professional judgment that the project design creates sufficient potential for flooding of other properties under future climate conditions
Foreseeable Third-Party Harm from Hydraulic Capacity Increase — Upstream Neighborhood
From Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation through project completion and beyond; harm projected to materialize a decade or more in the future
Proposed upgrade of tidal crossing from culvert to bridge, increasing hydraulic capacity and its projected effect on twenty upstream homes
Completion of specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, implementation of protective design measures, or project abandonment
Engineer A's professional judgment that increasing the hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will accelerate flood damage to upstream homes under future sea level rise and storm surge conditions
Foreseeable Upstream Flood Harm - Tidal Crossing Upgrade
From Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation through confirmation or refutation by specialized analysis, design modification, or project abandonment
Engineer A's professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade will accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes
Specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis confirming or refuting the risk, design modification eliminating the risk, or project abandonment
Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation, based on procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, concluding that the proposed project may result in upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing Escalation Sequence
Client B has refused to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. Engineer A must engage Client B in a graduated sequence before withdrawal becomes ethically mandatory. The BER explicitly identifies the two intermediate steps: client discussion and regulatory report proposal.
Graduated Client Engagement Before Withdrawal Constraint
Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence of engagement steps with Client B — first discussing the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives, then proposing inclusion of the concern in an engineering report for regulatory and public consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project, and is prohibited from both premature withdrawal that bypasses these intermediate steps and indefinite continuation after Client B refuses all intermediate steps.
From Client B's initial refusal of the specialized analysis through project resolution
Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
Client B's refusal to authorize specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
Engineer A must pursue a graduated sequence — first engaging Client B in discussion about the need for specialized evaluation and disclosure, then proposing a formal written engineering report to regulatory agencies, and only then withdrawing — rather than immediately withdrawing upon Client B's initial refusal
The graduated escalation obligation requires Engineer A to exhaust intermediate remediation steps that may protect the public even if Client B is ultimately unpersuaded, before exercising the final remedy of withdrawal
Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Obligation
Withdrawal is ethically required but only after graduated escalation steps have been exhausted; the graduated sequence maximizes the probability that public safety concerns are addressed before the engineer's last resort is exercised
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts. If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public. Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Gray Area Public Safety Judgment Disclosure Qualification — Engineer A Tidal Crossing Preliminary Finding
Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment — based on transportation agency conference guidance — that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of twenty upstream homes. This judgment is not yet confirmed by specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis. The constraint requires disclosure with epistemic qualification.
Engineer A must disclose the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of upstream homes while qualifying that disclosure as based on preliminary professional judgment requiring more detailed specialized evaluation to confirm, prohibiting both silence about the gray area risk and overstatement of its certainty as an established finding.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07.6; BER Case 18-9
From the point of forming the preliminary professional judgment through client engagement and regulatory disclosure
Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint - Engineer A Twenty Homes
Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment establishes that the tidal crossing upgrade will foreseeably accelerate upstream home uninhabitability, creating a disclosure obligation that persists despite Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis.
Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to disclose to Client B, the applicable regulatory authority, and potentially the upstream homeowners that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade — by increasing hydraulic capacity — foreseeably accelerates the uninhabitability of approximately twenty upstream homes under projected climate conditions, and is prohibited from proceeding with design and permitting without such disclosure even though Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1, II.3; BER Case 07-6; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
Throughout the design and permitting phase, triggered by Engineer A's preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk
Hydraulic Capacity Increase Upstream Third-Party Harm Disclosure — Engineer A Twenty Homes
The proposed upgrade from culvert to bridge will materially increase hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing. Engineer A's professional judgment is that this increase may accelerate tidal flooding of twenty upstream homes, potentially rendering them uninhabitable. Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis that would quantify this risk.
Engineer A is required to disclose to Client B, applicable regulatory authorities, and potentially the twenty upstream homeowners the foreseeable risk that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade — which materially increases hydraulic capacity — may accelerate tidal flooding and render upstream homes uninhabitable, and is prohibited from proceeding with design and permitting without such disclosure even if Client B directs Engineer A to forgo specialized analysis.
Prior to and during design and permitting of the tidal crossing upgrade
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of tidal crossing flooding impacts
Specialized subconsultant engagement decision
The BER holds that Engineer A need not be a modelling expert but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that there is sufficient potential for flooding to merit a detailed, complex evaluation — and that Engineer A in fact has such understanding, triggering the obligation to propose specialized subconsultant engagement.
In this context, the interdisciplinary competence threshold principle requires Engineer A to recognize the need for specialized modelling even though Engineer A is not a modelling expert, and to propose engagement of the specialized subconsultant rather than treating absence of personal expertise as a defense.
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold for Specialized Referral
The competence threshold principle resolves in favor of recognizing the need for specialized analysis; Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the referral obligation even without personal modelling expertise.
Interdisciplinary Competence Threshold Invoked for Hydraulic Modeling Recognition
Assessment of flooding risk to upstream neighborhood
Decision whether to recommend specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis
Engineer A, while not required to be a hydrodynamic modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize that the tidal crossing project creates sufficient potential for flooding of upstream properties to merit detailed specialized evaluation
The threshold competence obligation is satisfied when Engineer A can form a reasonable professional judgment that specialized analysis is warranted — the obligation is to recognize necessity, not to perform the specialized work
Engineer A's cross-disciplinary literacy is sufficient to trigger the obligation to recommend specialized analysis, even though Engineer A is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling
Interdisciplinary Threshold Competence Referral — Engineer A Hydraulic Coastal Modeling
Engineer A is not a specialist in hydrodynamic modeling or coastal hydraulics, but has sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding — evidenced by attendance at a transportation agency conference — to recognize that the culvert-to-bridge upgrade raises questions requiring specialized analysis. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from treating the absence of specialist credentials as a basis for declining to form or act on this threshold judgment.
Engineer A, while not required to be a modeling expert, must possess sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade creates sufficient potential for upstream flooding to merit a detailed, complex specialized evaluation — and this threshold competence triggers the obligation to recommend specialized subconsultant engagement.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Professional Competence Standard — Climate Engineering
Local Development Regulations — Hydraulic Design Criteria (25-Year Storm Standard)
Engineer A in scoping design and permitting obligations for Client B's healthcare facility access road
Specifies the minimum design standard for the access road and tidal crossing upgrade: a 25-year fresh-water storm event, assuming weather conditions consistent with updated historical data. Engineer A must satisfy this standard for local permitting, but it has not yet been updated to reflect climate change effects.
Local Development Regulations - 25-Year Storm Design Standard
Local Development Regulations (Hydraulic Design Requirements)
Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm, and assume that future weather conditions will be consistent with updated historical data
Engineer A in scoping design and permitting obligations
Establishes the minimum regulatory design criterion (25-year fresh-water storm, historical data baseline) that Engineer A must satisfy for local permitting of the roadway and tidal crossing upgrade, while simultaneously representing the gap between regulatory minimums and climate-adjusted professional duty
{'regulatory_basis': 'Local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design', 'limitation': 'Regulations not yet updated to reflect climate change, sea level rise, or updated precipitation recurrence intervals', 'role_in_case': 'Potential trigger for client-authorized specialized analysis; public hearing authority'}
The applicable regulatory authority responsible for local development permitting, whose potential future request for specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis is the condition Client B sets for authorizing that analysis; also the body before which public hearings on the project will be held.
{'type': 'receives_submissions_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer'}
Local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm
unless and until such an analysis is requested by the applicable regulatory authorities
Moving Target Climate Baseline — Engineer A Coastal Project
Ongoing at time of Engineer A's engagement; persists throughout project planning and design
engineers have assumed that future climate and weather conditions will be consistent with historical climate and weather data
The climate and weather data underpinning Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project design
Not terminated within the case; would require stabilization of climate parameters or adoption of updated dynamic design standards
climate and weather patterns be addressed not as fixed by historical patterns but rather recognized as a 'moving target'
the historical dataset changes as climate and weather patterns continue to change
Recognition that historical climate and weather datasets are themselves changing due to shifting climate patterns, making static historical baselines unreliable for future-condition design
Moving Target Climate Baseline — Tidal Crossing Hydraulic Design
Ongoing; climate parameters are actively shifting during the project design phase
Hydrologic and hydraulic design parameters for the tidal crossing upgrade
Stabilization of climate baselines or adoption of updated design standards (not yet occurred)
Engineer A's professional judgment, informed by hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference, that historical data no longer reliably predicts future conditions
National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)
Engineer A in navigating the conflict between Client B's directive and professional duty to protect upstream homeowners
The primary normative framework governing Engineer A's obligations. Particularly relevant are the paramount duty to hold public safety above client directives, and the obligation to act when professional judgment identifies a risk to public welfare — even when the client instructs otherwise.
NSPE Code of Ethics - Public Health Safety Welfare Paramount Obligation
National Society of Professional Engineers
Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. That obligation is not bounded by what is required by law, or by regulations, but rather is stated broadly.
Engineer A in evaluating obligations regarding climate change impacts on proposed development
Establishes the primary ethical obligation of engineers to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, stated broadly and not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements
Engineer A in evaluating obligations regarding climate-related flooding impacts
Establishes the primary ethical obligation of engineers to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, explicitly stated as broader than legal requirements
Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
Engineer A in evaluating obligations to client and public
Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligations to hold public safety paramount, to act as a faithful agent to Client B, and to navigate the tension between client direction and professional duty to protect third parties (upstream homeowners) from foreseeable harm
National standards bodies / transportation agencies
National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure (Tidal Crossings / Bridges)
Engineer A as the governing technical framework for bridge/culvert design
National-level technical codes governing hydraulic design of tidal crossings and bridges. Cited as not yet updated to reflect sea level rise, changing precipitation intensities, or shifting storm recurrence intervals — creating a gap between regulatory compliance and professional responsibility for public safety.
National Design Codes and Standards for Hydraulic Infrastructure
National Design Codes and Standards (Hydraulic/Bridge/Culvert Design)
Engineer A in designing tidal crossing upgrade
Establishes national-level technical design requirements for hydraulic infrastructure including tidal crossings, but has not yet been updated to reflect climate change effects on precipitation and sea level, creating a professional duty gap that Engineer A must navigate
Non-Acquiescence Client Economic Override Constraint - Engineer A Client B Analysis Suppression
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis on cost grounds, creating a situation where passive compliance would constitute abandonment of the public safety obligation to upstream homeowners.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A is constrained from simply acquiescing to Client B's directive to forgo the specialized hydraulic analysis without formally objecting, documenting the override, and evaluating whether the unmitigated upstream flood risk requires proactive disclosure to regulatory authorities — prohibiting passive compliance with Client B's cost-driven directive when that directive would cause Engineer A to abandon the primary ethical duty to public safety.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 84-5; BER Case 18-9
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B
Client B's directive to proceed without specialized subconsultant analysis
Upstream flood risk characterization obligation
Client B directs Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis unless regulators request it; the principle prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this directive because Engineer A's professional judgment has identified material risk to twenty upstream homes that the omitted analysis would characterize.
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to formally object to or refuse Client B's directive, because the omitted analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material risks to public safety — not merely a cost optimization.
The principle establishes that cost-based client directives cannot override the engineer's obligation to conduct safety-critical analysis when professional judgment identifies material public risk.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked Against Client B Refusal
Client B's cost-based refusal to authorize specialized analysis
Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo the recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that such analysis is necessary to identify and characterize material flood risks to the upstream residential community
Client B's cost management rationale does not override Engineer A's professional obligation to ensure that safety-relevant analysis is performed when the engineer's judgment indicates it is necessary to protect third-party welfare
The client's authority to direct the scope of the engineering engagement does not extend to directing the suppression of safety-relevant analysis that the engineer's professional judgment identifies as necessary
Non-Acquiescence to Client Directive Suppressing Safety Analysis Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis
The BER holds that Engineer A must not acquiesce to Client B's direction to forgo specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must engage Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation, propose regulatory report submission if Client B remains unconvinced, and withdraw if Client B refuses both courses of action.
In this context, the non-acquiescence principle requires Engineer A to treat Client B's cost-based direction to forgo analysis as ethically impermissible when Engineer A's professional judgment indicates that the analysis is necessary to identify material flooding risks to upstream homeowners.
Non-acquiescence principle overrides client direction; Engineer A must advocate for analysis and disclosure even against client resistance, escalating to regulatory submission or withdrawal if client refuses.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override — Engineer A Client B Cost-Directive Refusal
Client B has directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized analysis due to cost concerns. Engineer A's professional judgment is that the analysis is necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from acquiescing to this economic override.
Engineer A is prohibited from subordinating the professionally recommended specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to Client B's cost-reduction directive, and cannot continue work on the tidal crossing project in a manner that abandons the primary ethical duty to public safety in deference to Client B's economic concerns.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 84-5 (referenced in Non-Acquiescence class)
Throughout the project, from Client B's cost-reduction directive through project resolution
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Invoked By Engineer A
Client B directed Engineer A to proceed without the specialized hydraulic analysis unless and until requested by regulatory authorities; Engineer A's professional obligation requires refusal to acquiesce to this directive when professional judgment indicates the analysis is necessary to identify material risks to upstream homeowners
In this context, the non-acquiescence principle requires Engineer A to refuse to proceed without the specialized analysis, to document the professional judgment supporting that refusal, and to advise Client B in writing of the risks of proceeding without the analysis
The client's authority to direct scope and cost does not extend to directing the omission of safety-relevant analysis when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk to third-party welfare
Objectivity Invoked by BER Case 07.6 Precedent
Environmental analysis report submitted to public authority for development approval
In BER Case 07.6, the BER determined that Engineer A was ethically obligated to include information about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority — holding that engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and include all relevant and pertinent information, not just information favorable to the client's development proposal.
In the BER Case 07.6 context, objectivity required Engineer A to include material environmental findings in the report regardless of client preference, because the public authority approving the development would reasonably be interested in that information.
Objectivity and completeness obligation overrides client preference for omission; Engineer A must include all relevant and pertinent information in professional reports submitted to public authorities.
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Client B's refusal to fund specialized hydrologic analysis
Decision whether to submit engineering report to regulatory agencies
The BER holds that if Client B remains unconvinced after Engineer A's advocacy, Engineer A must propose submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies for public consideration — and if Client B refuses even that intermediate escalation step, Engineer A must withdraw from the project.
In this context, the post-refusal escalation principle generates a two-stage escalation obligation: first, propose regulatory report submission; second, withdraw if client refuses both analysis and disclosure. The client's refusal does not discharge Engineer A's independent public protection obligation.
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public. Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
Post-refusal escalation obligation overrides client preference for silence; Engineer A must escalate to regulatory disclosure or withdraw, rather than treating client refusal as a complete discharge of professional obligation.
Post-Client-Refusal Escalation Assessment Obligation Triggered by Client B's Refusal
Client B's refusal of specialized subconsultant analysis
Upstream Homeowners Flood Risk Community
After Client B refuses Engineer A's proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must assess whether the nature, probability, and severity of the identified flood risk to twenty upstream homes triggers an obligation to escalate to regulatory authorities or directly notify the affected community.
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to critically assess whether Client B's refusal — given that the risk involves potential uninhabitability of twenty homes a decade or more earlier — triggers escalation obligations beyond simply documenting the disagreement.
The severity and identifiability of the risk (twenty specific homes, decade-earlier uninhabitability) weighs toward escalation rather than conditional proceeding with documented uncertainty.
Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm — Engineer A Climate Assessment
Active from Engineer A's initial professional judgment of risk; persists until detailed evaluation is completed
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert
Potential Safety Risk Without Confirmed Imminent Harm State
The unconfirmed but reasonably foreseeable public safety risk from the project under future climate conditions
Completion of detailed climate and hydraulic modeling evaluation
Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely
Engineer A's professional judgment that climate-driven flooding risk is reasonably likely and significant but has not yet been confirmed through detailed modeling
Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency — Engineer A Transportation Agency Conference Guidance
Engineer A has access to expert-level technical guidance from a transportation agency conference that informs the professional judgment that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding. This guidance has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards. The constraint requires Engineer A to incorporate this guidance into professional judgment.
Pre-Standardization Technical Literature Currency Constraint
Engineer A is required to monitor and incorporate expert-level technical guidance — including guidance presented at a transportation agency conference regarding climate-adjusted hydraulic design — even when that guidance has not yet been codified into formal mandatory standards, and is prohibited from treating the absence of formal standardization as a complete justification for non-adoption when the guidance is reasonably accessible and relevant to the project.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Procedures
Engineer A attended a transportation agency conference at which an expert presented information suggesting that the proposed upgrade may accelerate tidal flooding of the upstream homes.
Design phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Qualification Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk
Engineer A's assessment of upstream flood risk is based on preliminary professional judgment from conference procedures, not completed specialized analysis, requiring qualified disclosure.
Preliminary Professional Judgment Disclosure Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to disclose the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk in a manner that clearly qualifies the assessment as preliminary and unconfirmed — based on conference procedures rather than completed specialized analysis — prohibiting both silence about the identified risk and overstatement of its certainty in communications with Client B, regulatory authorities, and affected parties.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint; professional norms on preliminary risk disclosure
Throughout all communications about the upstream flood risk during the design and permitting phase
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Flood
Engineer A proactively identified and proposed to analyze the upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade before the regulatory authority requested such analysis, demonstrating the professional obligation to communicate identified risks without waiting for formal requests
In this context, proactive risk disclosure requires Engineer A to communicate the identified upstream flood risk to the local permitting regulatory authority during the permitting process, even though Client B has directed that the specialized analysis be deferred until requested by the authority
Proactive risk disclosure requires communication of preliminary professional judgments about material risks, qualified appropriately as to their certainty, without waiting for regulatory requests that may never come if the risk is not disclosed
Engineer A proposes a complex and costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant to predict the extent to which sea level rise and the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will result in flood damage to a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges, anticipating this to be a difficult question to answer in the project's public hearings
Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked for Climate-Driven Flood Impacts
Engineer A must proactively communicate the identified climate-driven flood risks to Client B, regulatory authorities, and the affected upstream community without waiting for formal requests or for harm to materialize
The proactive disclosure obligation requires Engineer A to initiate disclosure of the flood risk through the graduated escalation sequence rather than remaining silent in the absence of a specific request for risk information
The proactive disclosure obligation is triggered by the identification of reasonably likely and significant impacts on third-party welfare, regardless of whether the client has requested such disclosure
Professional Competence Standard - Hydrology and Coastal Modeling Threshold
Professional engineering community and NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Professional Norms Governing Engineer Competence Thresholds for Recognizing Need for Specialized Analysis
BER in evaluating whether Engineer A had sufficient competence to recognize the need for detailed climate impact analysis
Establishes that engineers need not be modeling experts themselves but must have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to recognize when detailed specialized evaluation is warranted to protect public health, safety, and welfare from climate-related flood risks
Professional Competence Standard for Climate-Related Engineering Judgment
Engineer A need not necessarily be a modelling expert. However, Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment.
Engineer A in assessing whether their competence is sufficient to judge the need for detailed climate impact analysis
Establishes that engineers must possess sufficient cross-disciplinary understanding — including hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling — to recognize when specialized evaluation is needed, even if they are not themselves specialists
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer A Hydraulic Evaluation
Engineer A applied hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to assess the upstream flood risk of the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, demonstrating the professional obligation to apply current technical knowledge to identify and assess risks even when that knowledge is preliminary and the regulatory standard does not require such assessment
In this context, professional competence in risk assessment requires Engineer A to act on the preliminary risk assessment by recommending specialized analysis to quantify the identified risk, rather than deferring action pending the regulatory authority's request for such analysis
Professional competence in risk assessment requires acting on preliminary professional judgments about material risks, while fact-based disclosure obligation requires qualifying those judgments appropriately as preliminary; both principles are satisfied by recommending specialized analysis to confirm or refute the preliminary assessment
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Invoked for Engineer A Hydraulic Judgment
Decision to recommend specialized analysis
Engineer A must apply specialized technical competence in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal engineering to identify and assess the flood risks created by the tidal crossing project, and must act on that assessment even though the full quantification of risk requires additional specialized modeling
The competence obligation requires Engineer A to act on preliminary qualitative risk assessments rather than deferring action pending the completion of specialized quantitative modeling — the preliminary assessment is itself a professional product that generates obligations
Where preliminary professional assessment indicates reasonably likely and significant harm, the competence obligation requires action rather than deferral pending perfect information
Engineer A needs to have sufficient understanding of hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling to form a reasonable judgment that there is sufficient potential for flooding of other properties to merit a detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions.
Professional Disassociation Decision — Engineer A Withdrawal Threshold
Activated when Client B refuses both proposed courses of action (evaluation and engineering report for regulatory/public consideration); persists until resolution
Professional Disassociation Decision State
Engineer A's obligation to consider withdrawal from the project if Client B refuses both detailed evaluation and disclosure
Client B agreeing to one of the proposed courses of action, or Engineer A formally withdrawing from the project
In BER Case 18-9, Engineer A should withdraw from the project
Client B's failure to agree to either detailed evaluation or submission of an engineering report disclosing potential concerns to regulatory agencies and the public
Professional Report Integrity Standard - Climate Impact Disclosure
NSPE Board of Ethical Review through accumulated case decisions
Professional Norms Governing Engineering Report Completeness and Public Disclosure
Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
Engineer A in determining appropriate course of action when Client B resists disclosure of potential flooding impacts
Establishes the obligation of Engineer A to propose providing potential climate-related flooding concerns in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public when Client B refuses to authorize detailed evaluation, ensuring material information reaches decision-makers
Professional Report Integrity and Disclosure Standard
Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer A provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
Engineer A in determining obligations regarding written disclosure of flooding concerns to Client B and regulatory agencies
Establishes the obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports and to include all relevant and pertinent information, including potential climate-related flooding impacts, in reports submitted to regulatory agencies and the public
Proposed Specialized Hydrologic Hydraulic Subconsultant
{'specialty': 'Hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, sea level rise and storm surge flood modeling', 'engagement_status': 'Proposed but not authorized by client', 'analysis_scope': 'Predict flood damage to twenty upstream homes from sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity during future high tides and storm surges'}
Specialized subconsultant proposed by Engineer A to conduct complex hydrologic and hydraulic analysis predicting flood damage to upstream homes from sea level rise and increased tidal crossing capacity; engagement was rejected by Client B's direction to proceed without the analysis.
{'type': 'engagement_blocked_by', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer Client'}
{'type': 'proposed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
Specialized Hydrologic Hydraulic Subconsultant
Public Hearing Testimony Completeness Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk
Engineer A anticipates that the upstream flood risk will be a difficult question at public hearings, and is constrained to address that risk completely in testimony rather than omitting it at Client B's direction.
Engineer A is constrained, when providing engineering input at the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade, to address completely the foreseeable upstream flood risk — including the preliminary professional judgment about upstream home uninhabitability — prohibiting selective omission of the upstream flood risk from public hearing testimony even if Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 07-6; public hearing testimony completeness standards
At and in preparation for the public regulatory hearing for the tidal crossing upgrade
Public Safety Obligation Triggered (Event 6) → Submit Concerns to Regulators (Action 6) and/or Withdraw from Project (Action 7)
Public Safety Paramount Non-Limitation by Law — Engineer A Tidal Crossing
Local development regulations specify a 25-year storm standard based on historical weather data. Engineer A has professional knowledge that this standard is climatically inadequate under future conditions. The constraint prohibits Engineer A from treating regulatory compliance as sufficient.
Engineer A's ethical obligation to address public health, safety, and welfare impacts of the tidal crossing project is not bounded by what is required by applicable local development regulations or national design codes, prohibiting Engineer A from treating compliance with the 25-year storm standard as a complete discharge of professional obligations.
Throughout the tidal crossing project design and permitting process
Public Safety Paramount Obligation Beyond Legal Requirements
Throughout Engineer A's engagement on the project and beyond, until the risk is evaluated and mitigated or the project is abandoned
Professional engineers have a primary ethical obligation to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare
The public health, safety, and welfare risk created by the project's potential to cause flooding of third-party properties under future climate conditions, in a context where applicable law does not require the protective analysis Engineer A has identified as necessary
Completion of adequate climate impact evaluation and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, or project abandonment
Engineer A's professional judgment that the project creates reasonably likely and significant impacts on public health, safety, and welfare under projected future climate conditions
Public Safety at Risk - Upstream Residential Flood Hazard
From Engineer A's identification of the risk through project completion or adequate mitigation
Foreseeable flood damage to twenty upstream homes resulting from the tidal crossing upgrade under projected climate conditions
Design modification eliminating the risk, specialized analysis confirming no significant risk, regulatory mitigation requirements, or project abandonment
Engineer A's professional judgment that the hydraulic capacity increase will accelerate uninhabitability of upstream homes under sea level rise and intensified storm conditions
Public Safety at Risk — Upstream Residential Flood Exposure
From Engineer A's identification of the risk through project completion and into the future operational life of the crossing
Twenty upstream homeowners facing accelerated flood damage and potential uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade
Protective design measures implemented, analysis confirming no material harm, or project abandoned
Engineer A's professional judgment that the hydraulic capacity increase will render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer A Tidal Crossing
Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may cause approximately twenty upstream homes to become uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case, triggering a paramount obligation to protect those third-party homeowners whose welfare is directly threatened by the design decision
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to resist Client B's directive to forgo specialized hydraulic analysis, to disclose the identified risk to the local permitting regulatory authority, and to consider direct notification of the upstream homeowners if regulatory channels are inadequate
Public welfare paramount overrides client cost management preferences when the engineer's professional judgment identifies material risk of uninhabitability to an identifiable third-party community; the client's authority to direct scope does not extend to suppressing safety-relevant analysis
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Tidal crossing culvert-to-bridge upgrade
The BER affirms that Engineer A's primary ethical obligation — to hold paramount the protection of public health, safety, and welfare — is not bounded by legal or regulatory requirements but applies broadly to all reasonably likely and significant impacts, including flooding of upstream homes accelerated by the tidal crossing upgrade.
In this context, the public welfare paramount principle requires Engineer A to address climate change impacts on flooding risk regardless of regulatory requirement, to engage Client B in discussions about mitigation, to propose regulatory disclosure, and to withdraw if Client B refuses both.
Public welfare paramount overrides client direction to forgo specialized analysis; Engineer A must advocate for analysis and disclosure even against client resistance, and must withdraw if client refuses both.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked by Engineer A Against Client B's Cost Directive
Client B's directive to forgo safety analysis
Twenty upstream homes facing accelerated uninhabitability
Engineer A's identification of material flood risk to twenty upstream homes — and Client B's directive to forgo analysis that would characterize that risk — creates a direct conflict between public welfare and client cost preferences, requiring Engineer A to hold public welfare paramount.
In this context, public welfare paramount requires Engineer A to refuse to suppress safety analysis, notify affected parties or regulators, and escalate if Client B persists in blocking the analysis.
Public welfare paramount overrides client cost preferences when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community of twenty homes facing accelerated uninhabitability.
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in Climate Change Gray Areas
Cost management directives from Client B
Engineer A's primary ethical obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare extends beyond legal and regulatory requirements to encompass climate-driven flooding risks to upstream homeowners, requiring action even in the absence of regulatory mandates
In this context, the public welfare obligation requires Engineer A to address climate change impacts on flooding even where not legally required, because the obligation is stated broadly and is not bounded by law or regulation
Public welfare obligation is paramount and overrides client cost management preferences when significant and reasonably likely harm to third parties is identified
Qualitative Risk Assessment of Upstream Flood Harm
Engineer A's Professional Judgment: Upstream Flood Risk from Tidal Crossing Upgrade
It is Engineer A's judgment, based on hydraulic evaluation procedures presented at a recent transportation agency conference, that the proposed project may result in some upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case
Engineer A as basis for recommending the specialized analysis
Engineer A's structured professional judgment — grounded in transportation agency conference procedures — that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise, constituting a qualitative risk assessment that triggers professional obligations to the public even absent a formal quantitative study
Does Engineer A have an ethical obligation to address or evaluate the impacts of a project on public health, safety, and welfare with respect to climate change induced conditions that have not yet occurred?
At what threshold of professional certainty does Engineer A's preliminary judgment about upstream flood harm become sufficiently reliable to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation, even in the absence of the specialized subconsultant analysis that Client B has refused to fund?
Does Engineer A bear an independent ethical obligation to notify the twenty upstream homeowners directly about the foreseeable flood risk, or is disclosure to regulatory agencies and the public through official engineering reports sufficient to satisfy the third-party harm notification duty?
Does Engineer A's ethical obligation to consider climate-change-induced conditions extend to proactively advocating for updates to the applicable local development regulations and national design codes that currently fail to account for sea level rise and shifting precipitation patterns, beyond the scope of the immediate project?
How should Engineer A weigh the public benefit of the proposed healthcare facility against the foreseeable flood harm to the upstream residential community, and does the competing public goods dimension of this case alter the ethical calculus for disclosure or withdrawal?
In this set of circumstances, what are Engineer A’s reasonable courses of action with respect to engineering ethics?
Does the principle of Faithful Agent Notification to Client B conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure to upstream homeowners and regulatory authorities, and if so, which obligation takes precedence when Client B has explicitly directed Engineer A to suppress the climate risk analysis?
Does the principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment conflict with the principle of Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation when Engineer A's hydraulic judgment is based on conference procedures rather than a completed specialized analysis, and does the competence boundary constraint limit or eliminate the disclosure duty?
Does the principle of Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal conflict with the principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives when Client B has already issued an explicit refusal, and at what point does continued engagement with the project itself constitute acquiescence to the suppression of safety-relevant information?
Does the principle of Regulatory Gap Awareness conflict with the principle of Regulatory Compliance when Engineer A is required by local development regulations to design only to the 25-year fresh-water storm standard, yet professional judgment indicates that compliance with that standard will foreseeably cause harm to third parties under climate-adjusted conditions?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty to hold public safety paramount create an absolute obligation to disclose foreseeable upstream flood risks to regulatory authorities, independent of whether Client B authorizes that disclosure or whether applicable regulations require it?
From a consequentialist perspective, does the magnitude and irreversibility of harm to twenty upstream households — rendered uninhabitable potentially a decade earlier than otherwise — justify Engineer A incurring the professional and financial costs of unilateral disclosure to regulators, even when the causal chain runs through uncertain future climate conditions and an as-yet unquantified hydraulic interaction?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does a professionally virtuous engineer — one possessing practical wisdom, courage, and integrity — proceed with the tidal crossing design under a regulatory standard they personally judge to be climatically obsolete, or does professional virtue require openly contesting that standard even at the cost of the client relationship?
From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's duty as a faithful agent to Client B — which requires acting in the client's best interest — itself generate an independent obligation to warn Client B in writing of the legal, reputational, and financial liabilities that could follow if upstream flood harm materializes and the omitted hydraulic analysis is later discovered, thereby framing disclosure not as a betrayal of client loyalty but as its highest expression?
If Engineer A had declined the engagement at the outset upon recognizing that the applicable 25-year storm design standard was climatically inadequate for a tidal saltmarsh crossing, would that refusal have better protected the upstream community, or would it merely have transferred the risk to a less climate-aware engineer who would have proceeded without any concern for upstream flood harm?
If Client B had authorized the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic subconsultant analysis and that analysis confirmed Engineer A's preliminary judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade would accelerate upstream uninhabitability, what additional ethical obligations would have been triggered for Engineer A with respect to regulatory disclosure, project redesign, and potential withdrawal — and would the Board's conclusion have been more or less demanding in that scenario?
If Engineer A had included the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without first exhausting graduated engagement with Client B — such as written notification of risk consequences and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report — would that unilateral disclosure have constituted a breach of the faithful agent obligation, and how should the ethical weight of procedural sequence be assessed against the urgency of public safety?
If local development regulations and national design codes had already been updated to incorporate sea level rise projections and climate-adjusted precipitation recurrence intervals at the time of Engineer A's engagement, would Client B's directive to omit the specialized hydraulic analysis have constituted a clearer and more unambiguous ethical violation — and does the absence of updated standards meaningfully reduce Engineer A's ethical obligation, or does professional judgment independent of regulatory minimums remain fully operative?
Regulatory Authority Proactive Disclosure Constraint - Engineer A Upstream Flood Risk Without Client Authorization
Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis and proceed with permitting creates a situation where Engineer A must evaluate whether proactive regulatory disclosure is warranted without client authorization to protect the public safety of upstream homeowners.
Engineer A is constrained to evaluate whether the preliminary professional judgment that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability warrants proactive disclosure to the applicable regulatory authority without Client B's authorization — and if the gravity of the foreseeable harm to public health, safety, and welfare warrants such disclosure, Engineer A is constrained to make that disclosure regardless of Client B's directive to proceed without the specialized analysis.
NSPE Code of Ethics Section I.1; BER Case 76-4; BER Case 18-9; public safety paramount provisions
Throughout the design and permitting phase, following Client B's directive to forgo the specialized analysis
Regulatory Compliance - 25-Year Storm Design Standard
Throughout the design and permitting phase of the project
Engineer A's obligation to design the tidal crossing upgrade to meet local development regulations requiring a 25-year fresh-water storm design standard
Project completion, regulatory update, or project abandonment
Local development regulations requiring design for a 25-year fresh-water storm using historical data
Regulatory Compliance Constraint - Engineer A 25-Year Storm Standard
Local development regulations establish the minimum design criterion that Engineer A must satisfy to obtain local permitting approval for the tidal crossing upgrade.
Engineer A is legally and regulatorily constrained to design the tidal crossing upgrade to meet the locally required 25-year fresh-water storm design standard as a minimum threshold for local permitting approval, regardless of whether that standard adequately accounts for climate change effects.
Local development regulations governing the tidal crossing upgrade project
Throughout the design and local permitting phase
Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked By Engineer A Climate Change
Local development regulations requiring 25-year fresh-water storm design
Sea level rise and climate change projections
Engineer A recognized that local development regulations and national design codes had not been updated to reflect climate change effects — including sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals — and that designing to the regulatory minimum (25-year fresh-water storm based on historical data) would therefore fail to capture material future flood risks to upstream homeowners
In this context, the regulatory gap between current scientific understanding of climate change and the outdated regulatory design standard creates a professional obligation for Engineer A to disclose the gap to Client B and the local permitting regulatory authority, and to recommend supplemental analysis that captures the climate-adjusted risk
The regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to act on professional judgment about the inadequacy of the regulatory standard rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection
Regulatory Gap Awareness Invoked for Climate Change and Existing Standards
Engineer A must recognize that applicable regulatory standards for the tidal crossing design have not been updated to reflect current climate science, and must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap to Client B, regulators, and the upstream community rather than treating regulatory compliance as equivalent to adequate public protection
The regulatory gap awareness obligation is triggered when the engineer recognizes that existing regulatory standards are based on historical climate data that no longer reliably predicts future conditions — compliance with outdated standards does not discharge the public welfare obligation
Regulatory compliance is the ethical floor, not the ceiling; where regulatory standards have not kept pace with current climate science, the engineer's public welfare obligation requires going beyond regulatory minimums
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Climate change impacts on flooding risk to upstream homeowners
Regulatory standards for tidal crossing design
The BER holds that Engineer A's obligation to address climate change impacts exists regardless of whether applicable law or regulations require it — establishing that when regulatory standards have not been updated to reflect current climate science, engineers must proactively disclose the resulting risk gap rather than treating regulatory compliance as adequate public protection.
In this context, the regulatory gap principle requires Engineer A to identify and disclose that regulatory standards may not capture the full flooding risk posed by the tidal crossing upgrade under projected future climate conditions, and to propose regulatory report submission to ensure that gap is addressed.
Regulatory gap awareness principle requires proactive disclosure beyond regulatory compliance; Engineer A must not treat regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of public protection obligation.
Regulatory Gap Awareness and Proactive Risk Disclosure Invoked by Engineer A
Local development regulations (25-year storm standard)
Engineer A identifies that the local 25-year storm standard and the assumption of historically consistent future weather are regulatory standards that have not been updated to reflect sea level rise and updated precipitation recurrence intervals; the principle requires Engineer A to proactively disclose this gap to Client B and regulators rather than treating regulatory compliance as adequate public protection.
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to explicitly advise Client B and permitting authorities that the regulatory standard is outdated and that compliance with it does not adequately protect the upstream community from climate-driven flood risk.
The principle establishes that regulatory compliance is not equivalent to adequate public protection when the engineer possesses superior knowledge of the gap between regulatory standards and current climate science.
Regulatory Report Inclusion Proposal as Intermediate Escalation — Engineer A Client B Tidal Crossing
Client B has refused the specialized analysis. The BER identifies the regulatory report inclusion proposal as a specific mandatory intermediate step that Engineer A must offer before withdrawal becomes ethically permissible.
After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, Engineer A must — before withdrawing — propose to Client B that Engineer A document the identified potential concern in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public, establishing this report inclusion proposal as a mandatory intermediate escalation step between client discussion and project withdrawal.
After Client B's initial refusal of the specialized analysis and before project withdrawal
Regulatory Standard Climate Gap - Tidal Crossing Project
From project inception through any regulatory update or project completion
Applicable local development regulations and national design codes governing the tidal crossing upgrade
Regulatory update to reflect current climate science, or project abandonment
Engineer A's recognition that local development regulations require designing for a 25-year fresh-water storm using historical data, while current climate science indicates those standards are inadequate for projected sea level rise and altered precipitation patterns
Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Engineer A Project
Active throughout Engineer A's engagement; existing regulations have not been updated to reflect projected future climate conditions
Applicable regulations and codes governing Engineer A's coastal/hydraulic project
Would require regulatory update to incorporate future-condition climate standards
engineers consider 'going beyond' existing requirements to provide long-term protection of public health, safety, and welfare
Engineer A's recognition that applicable law and regulations do not require the level of climate-informed analysis that public safety warrants
Regulatory Standard Climate Gap — Tidal Crossing Project
Present throughout the project; persists until codes are updated to reflect climate change
Local development regulations and national design codes applicable to Engineer A's tidal crossing project
Future regulatory update incorporating sea level rise and revised precipitation recurrence intervals (not yet occurred)
Engineer A's recognition that local regulations require only a 25-year fresh-water storm design and assume historical weather data, while climate science has advanced beyond those assumptions
Render Independent Flood Risk Judgment (Action 2) → Upstream Habitability Risk Established (Event 3)
Resource Constraint - Specialized Subconsultant Analysis
From Client B's direction to proceed without analysis until authorization is granted or required
Client B's unwillingness to fund the specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis recommended by Engineer A
Client B authorizing the analysis, regulatory authority requiring it, or project abandonment
Client B's direction to proceed without the costly hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by a specialized subconsultant
Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis — Sea Level Rise and Tidal Crossing Flood Impact Study
Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology
Engineer A (proposed); specialized subconsultant (intended executor); regulatory authorities (anticipated audience at public hearings)
A complex, costly analysis proposed by Engineer A to be conducted by a specialized subconsultant. Its purpose is to predict the extent to which sea level rise combined with the increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing will cause flood damage to twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges. Client B directed Engineer A to forgo this analysis unless required by regulatory authorities.
Specialized engineering subdiscipline (hydrology, hydraulics, coastal engineering)
Hydrodynamic and Coastal Flood Risk Modeling Methodology
Engineer A in determining the need for detailed, complex evaluation of future conditions
Identified as the specialized technical methodology required to evaluate future flooding impacts on adjacent properties, which Engineer A must recognize as necessary even if not personally expert in it
Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Methodology - Coastal Flood Modeling
Specialized engineering subconsultants with coastal modeling expertise
Specialized Coastal Hydrodynamic and Flood Impact Modeling Methodology
Engineer A in determining the scope of analysis needed to evaluate climate-related flood risks to neighboring properties
Identified as the type of detailed, complex technical evaluation required to assess future flooding conditions and potential impacts on adjacent properties from proposed development, necessitating specialized subconsultant expertise in hydrology, hydraulics, and coastal modeling
Specialized Hydrologic and Hydraulic Subconsultant Analysis
Specialized hydraulic engineering subconsultant (proposed)
Proposed Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis: Sea Level Rise and Tidal Crossing Flood Impact Assessment
Engineer A (proposed); Client B (directed to withhold)
The specific technical study proposed by Engineer A to quantify the flood risk to twenty upstream homes from the combined effects of sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity of the tidal crossing, which Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo absent regulatory request — creating the central ethical tension of the case
Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked Against 25-Year Storm Regulatory Minimum
25-year storm regulatory design standard
Proposed specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis
Regulatory compliance as complete defense
The 25-year storm regulatory standard represents the legal floor for the tidal crossing design; Engineer A's professional judgment that this standard is inadequate given climate change establishes an obligation to exceed it — treating regulatory compliance as the minimum, not the maximum, of professional responsibility.
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to advise Client B and regulators that compliance with the 25-year storm standard does not discharge professional responsibility for the identified climate-driven risk to upstream homes.
The principle establishes that the regulatory standard is the floor; Engineer A's professional judgment that the floor is inadequate creates an obligation to recommend and pursue analysis beyond that minimum.
The local development regulations and national design codes and standards have not yet been updated to reflect changing conditions and weather patterns.
Standard of Care as Ethical Floor Invoked by BER Discussion Section
Climate change impact assessment obligation
The BER's holding that Engineer A must go 'beyond' existing requirements to address climate change impacts — and that the obligation exists regardless of regulatory requirement — operationalizes the principle that the standard of care is the ethical floor, not the ceiling, and that engineers must consider exceeding it when professional judgment identifies material risks not captured by regulatory standards.
In this context, the standard of care floor principle requires Engineer A to recognize that meeting regulatory requirements is the minimum, not the maximum, of ethical obligation — and that the identified flooding risk to upstream homeowners requires Engineer A to go beyond the regulatory minimum.
Standard of care floor principle supports going beyond regulatory minimum; Engineer A must not treat regulatory compliance as a complete discharge of ethical obligation.
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Homeowners
Engineer A has identified through professional assessment that the tidal crossing upgrade will materially accelerate uninhabitability of twenty upstream homes; the principle requires Engineer A to ensure those homeowners or regulatory authorities are informed of this risk even though the upstream community is not a party to the engineering engagement.
In this context, the principle requires Engineer A to ensure notification through appropriate channels — either directly to the upstream community or through regulatory disclosure during permitting — even if Client B has not authorized such notification.
The principle establishes that third-party notification obligations are not contingent on client authorization when the engineer has identified material risk to an identifiable community.
Third-Party Flood Risk Community Notification Obligation Invoked for Upstream Neighborhood
Engineer A must ensure that the upstream residential community of approximately twenty homes is informed of the identified flood risk through either direct notification or through formal written reports submitted to regulatory agencies for public consideration
The obligation to notify affected third parties is discharged through the formal regulatory report mechanism proposed in the graduated escalation sequence — the report to regulatory agencies serves as the vehicle for community notification
The third-party notification obligation overrides client preferences about information disclosure when identifiable community members face material flood risk from the proposed project
Third-Party Flood Risk Notification Invoked By Engineer A Upstream Homes
Engineer A identified approximately twenty upstream homeowners as an identifiable third-party community facing material risk of accelerated uninhabitability due to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade, creating an obligation to ensure that those homeowners or the regulatory authority with jurisdiction over their welfare receive timely notification of the identified risk
In this context, the third-party notification obligation requires Engineer A to ensure that the local permitting regulatory authority is informed of the upstream flood risk during the permitting process, and to consider whether direct notification of the upstream homeowners is warranted if regulatory channels are inadequate
Third-Party Affected Party Direct Notification Obligation
The obligation to notify identifiable third parties of material safety risks overrides client preferences for confidentiality or cost management when those third parties face risk of uninhabitability
Tidal Saltmarsh Ecological Sensitivity Design — Engineer A Culvert-to-Bridge Upgrade
The tidal crossing upgrade involves a culvert-to-bridge conversion in a tidal saltmarsh environment. The saltmarsh is subject to sea level rise, storm surge, and tidal dynamics. The constraint requires assessment and disclosure of hydraulic and ecological impacts beyond the regulatory minimum.
Engineer A is required to assess and disclose the hydraulic and ecological impacts of the culvert-to-bridge upgrade on the tidal saltmarsh environment, and is prohibited from treating compliance with local development regulations as a complete discharge of environmental impact assessment obligations given the saltmarsh's ecological sensitivity and climate vulnerability.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Environmental Regulatory Compliance Standards
The tidal crossing is located in a tidal saltmarsh environment that is sensitive to changes in tidal hydraulics and sea level rise.
Design and environmental assessment phase of the tidal crossing upgrade
Transportation agency / conference presenters
Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures Presented at Recent Transportation Agency Conference
Engineer A as the basis for professional judgment about upstream flood risk from the tidal crossing upgrade
Expert-level technical guidance presented at a transportation agency conference that informs Engineer A's professional judgment that the proposed project may render upstream homes uninhabitable a decade or more earlier than otherwise. This constitutes authoritative professional interpretation bridging emerging climate science to infrastructure design practice.
Transportation Agency Conference Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures
Transportation agency technical staff / conference presenters
Hydraulic Evaluation Procedures for Climate-Adjusted Infrastructure Design (Transportation Agency Conference Presentation)
Engineer A as basis for professional judgment about upstream flood risk
Provides the technical basis for Engineer A's professional judgment that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate the uninhabitability of upstream homes, grounding the ethical concern in emerging expert consensus rather than mere speculation
Unverified Third-Party Flood Risk - Upstream Homes
From Engineer A's initial hydraulic evaluation until specialized analysis is completed or the concern is otherwise resolved
Engineer A's professional judgment about upstream flood risk, not yet confirmed by specialized analysis
Completion of specialized hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, or project abandonment
Engineer A's application of hydraulic evaluation procedures from a recent transportation agency conference to the proposed tidal crossing upgrade
{'number_of_homes': 'Twenty upstream homes', 'risk_type': 'Accelerated flood damage and uninhabitability from tidal surge and sea level rise', 'timeline': 'A decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case', 'awareness': 'Not yet informed; analysis not yet conducted'}
Twenty upstream homes whose residents face accelerated uninhabitability—potentially a decade or more earlier than otherwise—due to the increased hydraulic capacity of the proposed tidal crossing combined with sea level rise and storm surge effects; their welfare grounds Engineer A's paramount public safety obligations.
{'type': 'at_risk_from', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer project'}
{'type': 'public_safety_obligation_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
Upstream Residential Flood Risk Community
{'number_of_homes': 'approximately twenty', 'risk_type': 'Accelerated uninhabitability from flood damage during high tides and storm surges', 'risk_timeline': 'A decade or more earlier than would otherwise be the case', 'location': 'Upstream of proposed tidal crossing'}
Approximately twenty upstream homeowners whose properties face accelerated flood risk and potential uninhabitability due to the increased hydraulic capacity of the proposed tidal crossing combined with sea level rise and intensified storm surges, establishing Engineer A's paramount public safety obligations.
{'type': 'at_risk_from_design_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Tidal Crossing Infrastructure Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_to_decisions_of', 'target': 'Client B Cost-Directing Developer'}
a neighborhood of twenty upstream homes during future high tides and storm surges
Withdraw from Project (Action 7) → Project Continuation Risk Realized (Event 6)
Written Report Completeness — Engineer A BER 07.6 Bird Species Threat Inclusion
Engineer A's firm's biologist identified a threat to a threatened bird species in the adjacent protected wetlands. The BER determined it was unethical for Engineer A to omit this information from the written report submitted to the public authority. This precedent informs the current case's reporting obligations.
Engineer A in BER Case 07.6 was required to include all relevant and pertinent information — including the threat to the bird species identified by the firm's biologist — in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, and was prohibited from selectively omitting this information even if it was communicated verbally to the client.
At the time of preparing and submitting the written report to the public authority
Written Safety Notification Constraint - Engineer A Client B Upstream Flood Risk
Engineer A has formed a preliminary professional judgment that the project may render upstream homes uninhabitable earlier than otherwise, triggering a written notification obligation to Client B regardless of whether specialized analysis has been completed.
Potential Safety Risk Written Notification Without Investigation Constraint
Engineer A is constrained to advise Client B in writing of the identified potential risk that the tidal crossing upgrade may accelerate upstream home uninhabitability — even though the risk has not been confirmed by specialized analysis — and this written notification obligation does not extend to a duty to independently investigate the risk further or to recommend specific mitigation alternatives beyond the specialized subconsultant analysis already proposed.
NSPE Code of Ethics Sections I.4 and III.1.b; BER case precedent on written safety notification
Immediately upon Engineer A's formation of the preliminary professional judgment about upstream flood risk
climate change effects (ongoing) overlaps current engineering planning and design decisions
existing historical climate and weather data assumption before recognition of climate change as a moving target in recent decades
existing local development regulations and national codes before updated regulations reflecting climate change
historical climate and weather data usage before recognition of climate as a moving target in recent decades
hydraulic evaluation by Engineer A before Engineer A's proposal for specialized subconsultant analysis
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis by specialized subconsultant before public hearings on the project
local development regulations and national design codes before updated standards reflecting climate change
project construction / culvert-to-bridge upgrade before upstream homes becoming uninhabitable earlier than baseline
project design and permitting (Engineer A's scope) before future flooding of upstream homes during high tides and storm surges
proposed culvert-to-bridge upgrade (project construction) before upstream homes becoming uninhabitable a decade or more earlier
regulatory authority request for analysis before costly specialized analysis (per Client B's directive)
sea level rise and increased hydraulic capacity effects during future high tides and storm surges
transportation agency conference presentation before Engineer A's hydraulic evaluation judgment on the project
transportation agency conference presentation of hydraulic evaluation procedures before Engineer A's judgment about upstream flooding risk