Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in...BER Case 04-8 (violation of federal and state laws and regulations)
BER in mapping the disclosure precedent line applicable to Engineer L
Precedent in the disclosure line of cases involving violation of federal and state laws and regulations, supporting the principle that known facts require disclosure
A classic example of 'the disclosure question' forms the crux of BER Case 07-6.
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority.
The key point of BER Case 07-6 is that information about the threat to the bird species is a 'fact' of the case.
BER in analyzing Engineer L's disclosure obligations regarding stormwater runoff risk
Key precedent on the disclosure question: establishes that known environmental risks constituting 'facts' must be included in written reports submitted to public authorities, not merely mentioned verbally
Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in...BER Case 18-9 (public safety risk of future surge level rise)
Precedent in the disclosure line of cases involving public safety risk of future surge level rise, supporting the principle that known facts require disclosure
Several recent cases, including BER Case 22-5 and BER Case 20-4, emphasize an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water.
BER in establishing the environmental ethics framework for Engineer L's case
Recent precedent emphasizing engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with emphasis on safe drinking water
Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in...BER Case 21-2 (effects of sea level rise and changes in precipitation intensities and recurrence intervals effected by on-going climate change.)
Precedent in the disclosure line of cases involving effects of sea level rise and climate change on precipitation, supporting the principle that known facts require disclosure
they quoted BER Case 67-10 which stated, '[i]t is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in [Section] 2 and [Section] 2(a) of the [C]ode.'
Early precedent affirming the foundational concept that professional members must devote their interests to public welfare, quoted within BER Case 76-4
BER Case 76-4 provides a foundation that other BER cases have built upon
In BER Case 76-4, the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.
BER in grounding Engineer L's disclosure obligations
Foundational precedent establishing engineer's paramount duty to public welfare over client loyalty in environmental discharge situations; basis for subsequent BER environmental cases
BER Case 76-4 (1976) before BER Case 84-5 (1984)
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.' The BER...felt that 'Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns.'
We note a direct parallel between the 1984 case and the facts under consideration.
BER in concluding Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's refusal of protective measures
Direct parallel precedent establishing that an engineer who abandons ethical duty to public safety in favor of client economic concerns violates Code section II.1.a; applied to Engineer L's situation with Client X
Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in BER Case 89-7 (safety violations confided by the Client)
Precedent in the disclosure line of cases involving safety violations confided by the client, supporting the principle that known facts require disclosure
Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in...BER Case 99-8 (incomplete drawings and specifications)
Precedent in the disclosure line of cases involving incomplete drawings and specifications, supporting the principle that known facts require disclosure
CausalLink_Conduct Additional Risk Studie
CausalLink_Continue Work Despite Refusal
CausalLink_Formally Notify Client of Risk
CausalLink_Resume Work Without Disclosure
CausalLink_Withhold Preliminary Risk Conc
{'type': 'Private client', 'decision': 'Refused safety recommendation on cost grounds'}
Hired Engineer A for complete engineering services; refused Engineer A's recommendation to hire a full-time on-site project representative citing cost concerns; analogous to Client X in the present case.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Project Engineer'}
a client hired Engineer A to furnish complete engineering services for a project
The client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project
Client Loyalty Balanced Against Public Welfare in BER Case 76-4
XYZ Corporation instruction not to complete written report
Engineer Doe's role as faithful agent or trustee to XYZ Corporation, which was overridden by the paramount duty to public welfare when the client sought to suppress findings at a public regulatory hearing
Faithful agent obligation to client is a genuine professional duty but is bounded by the paramount obligation to public welfare; client instructions to suppress material safety findings cannot be honored
Engineer Doe Environmental Consulting Engineer
XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report and paid Engineer Doe the agreed upon fee.
The BER held that the faithful agent obligation yields to public welfare when the client seeks to present misleading data to a regulatory authority on matters affecting public water quality
The BER noted an engineer's obligation is to act for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.
Within this environmental framework, the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Client Loyalty Bounded by Public Safety in Engineer L Phase 1
Client X request to suspend design work due to financial setbacks
Engineer L's obligation to act as Client X's faithful agent permitted respecting the client's request to suspend design work when Engineer L had only an unverified concern rather than a confirmed technical finding about stormwater risk
In the absence of confirmed facts triggering the public welfare paramount obligation, the faithful agent duty to the client operates normally and permits the engineer to honor the client's reasonable business decisions
When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request.
Because the concern had not risen to fact level, client loyalty was the operative principle in Phase 1; Engineer L could respect the suspension request without violating public welfare obligations
Beyond the fact limitation, under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee.
Client Loyalty Invoked By Engineer L Toward Client X
Continued engagement despite disagreement over protective measures
Engineer L respected Client X's request to suspend work due to financial setbacks and continued to serve Client X's interests upon resumption, while simultaneously advocating for protective measures — illustrating the tension between faithful client service and public welfare obligations
Loyalty to Client X is legitimate up to the point where Client X's refusal to implement protective measures creates an unacceptable risk to the community's drinking water source; beyond that point, public welfare obligations override loyalty
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Loyalty has been honored through continued service and client notification; the unresolved question is whether loyalty now requires Engineer L to accept Client X's refusal or whether public welfare requires escalation beyond the client relationship
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations.
Client X Budget Resource Constraint on Protective Measures
Client X cited continuing budget limitations as the basis for refusing to invest in additional protective measures recommended by Engineer L to address confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community watershed.
Client X's financial limitations constrain the scope of protective stormwater measures that Client X is willing to fund, creating a resource-driven barrier to implementation of Engineer L's recommended safeguards.
Client X's stated budget limitations; project financial context
From initial work suspension through project resumption and beyond
Client X Non-Compliant Insistence on Proceeding Without Safeguards
From Client X's refusal of additional safeguards through the end of the scenario
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
Client X's explicit directive to proceed with the stormwater management project without additional protective measures despite Engineer L's documented warnings and applicable environmental standards
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards after Engineer L notifies of risk and recommends additional protective measures
{'entity_type': 'Private development entity', 'financial_status': 'Experienced unexpected financial setbacks; later improved', 'compliance_posture': 'Deferred compliance, citing budget limitations'}
Private development entity that contracted Engineer L for stormwater system design. Experienced financial setbacks causing work suspension, later resumed project, and refused to invest in additional protective measures despite engineer's risk advisories and environmental compliance requirements.
{'type': 'contracts', 'target': 'Engineer L Stormwater Design Engineer'}
{'type': 'subject_to_regulation', 'target': 'Local environmental standards'}
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work
Client X is hesitant to invest in additional protective measures, citing continuing budget limitations
Client X Refusal of Safeguards - Confirmed Risk Phase
From Client X's insistence to proceed without safeguards through the ethical dilemma requiring Engineer L's decision
Client X's insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L
Confirmed Risk Without Adequate Safeguards State
Project state after Engineer L's notification of confirmed runoff risk and Client X's refusal to implement protective measures
Engineer L's ethical decision to refuse to acquiesce to Client X's insistence (per BER conclusion)
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project'
Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L
Client X insists on moving forward with the project without investing in the protective measures identified by Engineer L following notification of confirmed runoff risk
From unexpected financial setbacks through resumption of work and beyond; persists at end of scenario
Client X's financial limitations affecting willingness and ability to invest in additional protective stormwater measures
Not resolved within the scenario timeframe
Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks requiring suspension of Engineer L's work
Client X's refusal of additional safeguards after Engineer L's formal notification of risk to Client X
Client's refusal citing cost (BER Case 84-5) before Engineer A continuing work on project (BER Case 84-5)
Community Drinking Water Public Safety Risk
From Engineer L's preliminary design concerns onward, intensifying after historic rainfall event
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase
The nearby community's primary drinking water source threatened by potential stormwater runoff from the development
Not resolved within the scenario; Client X refuses additional protective measures
Engineer L qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
an historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed
Engineer L identifies during preliminary design that risk of impact to community drinking water source will potentially increase over time; intensified by historic heavy rainfall
It was not unethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about unquantified increased risk.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer L's silence during the suspension was not unethical rests implicitly on the distinction between a quantified, fact-grounded professional finding and a preliminary, unquantified concern. However, this distinction has limits that the Board did not fully articulate. Code provision II.3.b permits engineers to express technical opinions founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter, and provision III.1.b obligates engineers to advise clients when they believe a project will not be successful. Taken together, these provisions suggest that even a qualitative, pre-analytical concern — when held by an engineer with Engineer L's demonstrated expertise in stormwater control design — may carry sufficient epistemic weight to trigger at least a qualified advisory obligation to the client. The Board's conclusion that silence was permissible should therefore be understood as narrowly fact-specific: it applies only because Engineer L's concern had not yet crossed the threshold from professional intuition to professional judgment. Had Engineer L possessed even a preliminary qualitative estimate of elevated risk at the time of suspension, the same silence would likely have constituted a material omission under provision III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing omissions that are intended or likely to mislead the client. The Board's conclusion does not establish a general safe harbor for withholding early-stage safety concerns; it merely reflects that the epistemic threshold for mandatory disclosure had not yet been reached in this specific instance.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer L's silence during the suspension was not unethical does not resolve the separate question of whether that silence, in combination with the subsequent historic rainfall event, created a compounded ethical deficit. The suspension period was not ethically neutral in its consequences: it coincided with a historic rainfall event that materially elevated the runoff risk to the community's drinking water source, and the absence of any protective design during that period was a direct consequence of the project's suspended state. While Engineer L cannot be held ethically responsible for the rainfall event itself, the Board's analysis does not adequately address whether Engineer L had an obligation, upon resuming work and discovering the elevated risk, to disclose not only the current risk but also the fact that the preliminary concern had existed prior to suspension. Provision III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions that mislead the client applies to the totality of Engineer L's professional communications, and a post-resumption disclosure that omits the pre-suspension history of concern could itself constitute a misleading omission by creating the false impression that the risk was entirely a product of the rainfall event rather than a foreseeable trajectory that Engineer L had already begun to perceive. The Board's approval of the suspension-era silence should not be read as approving a pattern of selective disclosure that obscures the developmental history of the risk.
The Board's marking of Question 2 as 'unknown' — whether it would be ethical for Engineer L to continue working after Client X refuses protective measures — reflects genuine analytical difficulty, but the weight of the applicable code provisions and precedent strongly suggests that continued work under these conditions would be ethically impermissible rather than merely inadvisable. Code provision I.1 establishes that holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public is the engineer's first and overriding obligation. Provision II.1.a requires that when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, the engineer shall notify the proper authority. Provision III.1.b obligates engineers to advise clients when a project will not be successful and to refuse to proceed when the client insists on proceeding in a manner that endangers health, safety, or welfare. In this case, Engineer L has not merely expressed a concern — Engineer L has conducted studies, qualitatively confirmed the runoff risk, identified that local environmental standards require protective measures, and communicated this to Client X. Client X has explicitly refused to implement those measures and stated it will address compliance issues 'later, if needed.' This sequence of facts — confirmed risk, identified regulatory obligation, explicit client refusal — satisfies the conditions under which continued work crosses from permissible professional disagreement into active participation in a project that Engineer L knows poses an unmitigated risk to the community's primary drinking water source. Continued work under these conditions would constitute acquiescence to an unsafe client directive in violation of the principle established in BER Case 84-5 and would undermine the paramount public welfare obligation that the Code places above client loyalty. The Board's 'unknown' designation should therefore be resolved in the direction of ethical impermissibility, with withdrawal being the minimum required response.
Even if the Board were to conclude that Engineer L's withdrawal from the project is ethically required upon Client X's refusal of protective measures, withdrawal alone does not exhaust Engineer L's ethical obligations under the Code. Provision II.1.a requires that when an engineer's judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, the engineer shall notify the proper authority. In this case, the 'proper authority' is not merely Client X — who has already been notified and has refused to act — but the local environmental regulatory authorities whose standards explicitly require safeguarding the community's primary drinking water source. The community's reliance on the nearby watershed as its primary drinking water source elevates this situation beyond a routine contractual dispute into a matter of direct public health consequence. Engineer L's confidentiality obligations to Client X are real but are not absolute: provision I.1's paramountcy clause and the Code's overall structure establish that confidentiality yields when public safety is at stake. Precedent from BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 07-6 reinforces that engineers cannot suppress or withhold findings that bear on public welfare simply because a client prefers non-disclosure. Accordingly, Engineer L's ethical obligations upon Client X's refusal include not only withdrawal from the project but also notification to the relevant environmental or public health regulatory authorities of the confirmed, unmitigated stormwater runoff risk to the community's drinking water source. This escalation is not merely ethically permissible — it is ethically required once Engineer L has confirmed the risk, communicated it to the client, and received an explicit refusal to act.
The Board's analysis does not address the obligations that arise for Engineer L with respect to any successor engineer who might assume responsibility for the project after Engineer L's withdrawal. If Engineer L withdraws and a successor engineer is engaged by Client X without knowledge of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk and Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures, that successor engineer will be placed in a position of unknowing participation in a project with an unmitigated public health risk. Provision III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions that mislead, and the broader principle of professional accountability embedded in the Code, suggest that Engineer L has at minimum an obligation not to actively conceal the confirmed risk from a successor. More affirmatively, the principle of public welfare paramountcy under provision I.1 supports the conclusion that Engineer L should, to the extent permitted by applicable confidentiality constraints, ensure that any successor engineer is made aware of the confirmed risk before assuming project responsibility. This obligation is distinct from and supplementary to the obligation to notify regulatory authorities: it operates within the professional community to prevent the risk from being perpetuated through uninformed professional succession. The Board's silence on this point leaves a significant gap in the ethical analysis of Engineer L's post-withdrawal responsibilities.
It would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
In response to Q101: An engineer's preliminary, unquantified concern about public safety crosses the threshold for mandatory disclosure to the client when the concern is (a) grounded in professional judgment rather than mere speculation, (b) directed at a specific, identifiable harm pathway — here, stormwater runoff into a primary drinking water source — and (c) material to the client's ability to make informed decisions about the project, including whether to suspend it. Code provision II.3.b permits engineers to express technical opinions 'founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter,' and provision III.1.b requires engineers to advise clients when they believe a project will not be successful. Engineer L's preliminary concern, though unquantified, was rooted in professional expertise in stormwater control design and was directed at a specific, high-stakes harm pathway. The suspension decision itself was a material project decision that could have been informed by that concern. Accordingly, the threshold for disclosure was met at the moment of suspension, even absent a quantified risk estimate. The Board's conclusion that silence was not unethical (Conclusion 1) appears to rest on the absence of quantification, but the Code does not limit disclosure obligations to quantified findings — it requires disclosure of professional judgment that is fact-grounded and competence-based. Engineer L's silence during suspension communications therefore represents a missed, though arguably not clearly unethical, disclosure opportunity under the applicable provisions.
In response to Q102: Engineer L's silence about the potential drinking water risk during the suspension period constitutes a material omission under Code provision III.3.a, which prohibits statements containing 'a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact necessary to prevent misrepresentation.' The omission is material because Client X's decision to suspend work — and the terms under which work would resume — was directly affected by whether a latent public safety risk existed. A client who knows that suspension leaves an unmitigated and growing risk to a community's primary drinking water source may choose different suspension terms, accelerate resumption, or take interim protective steps. By omitting this concern, Engineer L deprived Client X of information necessary to make a fully informed decision. The fact that the risk was unquantified does not render it immaterial; materiality is determined by whether a reasonable client would consider the information significant, not by whether the engineer has completed a full quantitative analysis. The affected community's reliance on the watershed as its primary drinking water source elevates the materiality of even a qualitative, preliminary concern. This conclusion extends the Board's finding in Conclusion 1 by identifying a specific provision under which the omission is analytically problematic, even if the Board declined to find it unethical.
In response to Q103: Once Client X refused to implement protective measures after Engineer L had quantified and communicated the confirmed stormwater runoff risk, Engineer L incurred an independent ethical obligation — and likely a mandatory one — to notify local environmental or public health regulatory authorities. This conclusion follows from Code provision I.1, which makes public safety, health, and welfare paramount, and from provision II.1.a, which requires engineers whose judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property to notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate. The phrase 'such other authority as may be appropriate' is not permissive language for a trivial risk — it is a directive triggered when a client overrides safety-critical professional judgment. Here, the risk is not abstract: local environmental standards explicitly require safeguarding the community's primary drinking water source, Client X has explicitly refused to comply, and the affected population has no alternative water source. The confidentiality constraint on client information is defeasible under these circumstances. Code provision III.3.a's prohibition on material omissions, combined with the paramount public welfare obligation, creates a hierarchy in which confidentiality yields to safety when the harm is concrete, the affected population is identifiable, and the client has affirmatively refused to act. Engineer L's withdrawal alone, without regulatory notification, would be ethically insufficient under these conditions. BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 07-6 both support the principle that public welfare overrides client loyalty when safety is genuinely at stake.
In response to Q104: If Engineer L withdraws from the project after Client X refuses protective measures, Engineer L bears an ethical obligation to ensure that any successor engineer is made aware of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community's drinking water source before that engineer assumes responsibility for the project. This obligation derives from Code provision I.1's paramount public welfare mandate and from the principle that withdrawal cannot be used as a mechanism to launder a known safety risk by transferring it to an uninformed professional. A successor engineer who is unaware of the confirmed risk may proceed without implementing protective measures, producing the same harm that Engineer L sought to prevent. The ethical force of Engineer L's withdrawal is nullified if it merely substitutes an uninformed engineer for an informed one. While the Code does not contain an explicit successor-notification provision in the extracted text, the combination of the public welfare paramount obligation, the non-deception constraint under III.3.a, and the professional accountability principle supports the conclusion that Engineer L must, at minimum, document the confirmed risk findings and make them available to any successor. If Client X refuses to permit such disclosure to a successor, that refusal itself constitutes an additional ground for regulatory escalation under II.1.a.
In response to Q201 and Q203: The tension between Client Loyalty and Proactive Risk Disclosure is not a symmetrical conflict between equally weighted principles. Code provision I.1 establishes a lexical priority: public safety, health, and welfare are paramount, and client loyalty operates within that constraint rather than alongside it as an equal. When Engineer L chose not to mention the preliminary stormwater concern during the suspension communications, the silence was defensible only because the concern had not yet crossed the fact-grounded threshold required by II.3.b. Once the risk was confirmed and communicated, and Client X refused protective measures, the Client Loyalty principle was no longer available as a justification for continued work or silence. At that point, the Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives principle governed, and the resolution required not merely formal objection while continuing work, but withdrawal — and, as argued in response to Q103, regulatory escalation. The Board's unresolved Conclusion 2 implicitly recognizes this hierarchy by suggesting continued work would not be ethical, but the analysis is incomplete without acknowledging that withdrawal alone may be insufficient when a confirmed, unmitigated risk to a community's primary drinking water source persists after client refusal.
In response to Q202: The Code does not limit disclosure obligations to findings that meet a threshold of full analytical rigor or quantification. Code provision II.3.b permits engineers to express technical opinions 'founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter,' and provision III.1.b requires advising clients when a project will not be successful. Both provisions contemplate disclosure of professional judgment, not merely of completed analyses. The principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment does not create a safe harbor for silence until quantification is complete; rather, it defines the epistemic standard for the opinion expressed. Engineer L's preliminary concern was founded on years of stormwater design experience and on specific observations about the development's likely impact on the watershed. That concern was a competence-based professional judgment, not speculation. The Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation therefore applied to it, even in qualitative form. The appropriate disclosure would have been a qualified statement — acknowledging the concern, noting its preliminary nature, and recommending that quantification be completed before or upon resumption — rather than silence. This conclusion is consistent with BER Case 07-6, where the Board found that an engineer's obligation to report objectively extended to findings that were inconvenient to the client, regardless of whether they were fully developed.
In response to Q301 and Q303 (deontological and virtue ethics perspectives): From a deontological standpoint, Engineer L's omission of preliminary stormwater concerns during suspension communications represents an incomplete fulfillment of the categorical duty of candor toward Client X. The duty of candor is not contingent on the completeness of analysis; it is grounded in the engineer's role as a trusted professional whose communications must not mislead by omission on matters material to the client's decision-making. However, Engineer L's subsequent disclosure of confirmed risk upon resumption — proactively and in the face of client resistance — demonstrates that the deontological duty was ultimately honored in its most critical application. From a virtue ethics perspective, this sequence reveals a professional whose moral courage was exercised when the stakes were highest and the facts were clearest, but who may have fallen short of the ideal of proactive candor during the earlier, more ambiguous phase. The later disclosure does not fully redeem the earlier silence, because the silence coincided with a period during which the historic rainfall event elevated risk and interim protective measures might have been taken. A fully virtuous engineer — one embodying the character of a trustworthy steward of public welfare — would have communicated the preliminary concern in qualified terms at the moment of suspension, preserving both client loyalty and public safety obligations. The contrast with Engineer A in BER Case 84-5, who failed to withdraw when a client overrode safety-critical judgment, is instructive: Engineer L's later disclosure and implicit withdrawal trajectory represent a morally superior response, but the earlier silence introduces a character inconsistency that the virtue ethics framework cannot fully excuse.
In response to Q302 and Q305 (consequentialist perspectives): The Board's conclusion that omitting unquantified risk during the suspension was not unethical (Conclusion 1) does not adequately account for the consequentialist dimension of the timing gap. The suspension period was not a neutral interval — it coincided with a historic rainfall event that materially elevated runoff risk, and the absence of any interim protective measures during that period was a direct consequence of Client X's uninformed suspension decision. Had Engineer L disclosed the preliminary concern at suspension, Client X might have taken interim protective steps or accelerated resumption, potentially reducing the risk exposure during the rainfall event. The consequentialist calculus therefore weighs against the Board's permissive conclusion, even if the deontological analysis is more forgiving. On Q305, the argument that Engineer L continuing to work after Client X's refusal — while advocating internally for protective measures — would produce better outcomes than withdrawal is not persuasive under the facts. Internal advocacy has already failed: Client X has explicitly refused protective measures and stated it will address compliance issues 'later, if needed.' Continued work by Engineer L under these conditions would lend professional credibility to a non-compliant design, potentially reducing regulatory scrutiny and making it harder for the community to obtain protection. Withdrawal, combined with regulatory notification, is the consequentially superior outcome because it removes Engineer L's implicit endorsement of the unsafe design and activates the regulatory mechanism that local environmental standards provide for exactly this situation.
In response to Q401 and Q402 (counterfactual questions): Had Engineer L disclosed the preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X at the moment of work suspension, two beneficial outcomes were plausible. First, Client X would have been better positioned to make an informed suspension decision — potentially choosing to fund a rapid risk quantification study before suspending, or to implement interim protective measures during the suspension period. Second, the gap in protective design that coincided with the historic rainfall event might have been narrowed or eliminated. The counterfactual disclosure would not have required Engineer L to overstate the risk; a qualified statement acknowledging a preliminary professional concern and recommending quantification upon resumption would have satisfied both the candor obligation and the fact-grounded opinion standard. On Q402, requiring Client X to commit in writing to fund protective measures before resuming work would have been ethically superior to the path actually taken — resuming work and then notifying Client X of risk after additional studies. A written commitment would have established a contractual and ethical baseline for the resumed project, reduced the likelihood of the current impasse, and demonstrated Engineer L's proactive stewardship of public welfare. The absence of such a precondition allowed Client X to resume the project without any acknowledged obligation to address the risk, making the subsequent refusal of protective measures predictable and the community's exposure to harm more likely.
In response to Q403: If Client X had agreed to implement protective measures only partially — addressing some but not all of the quantified runoff risks — Engineer L would face a graduated ethical obligation that cannot be resolved by a simple binary of continue or withdraw. The ethical analysis would require Engineer L to assess whether the partial safeguards reduce the residual risk to a level that is consistent with local environmental standards for drinking water source protection and with the paramount public welfare obligation under Code provision I.1. If the partial measures bring the project into compliance with applicable environmental standards, continued work would be ethically permissible, provided Engineer L documents the residual risks and continues to advocate for full implementation. If the partial measures are insufficient to meet regulatory standards or to protect the community's primary drinking water source from a material risk of harm, continued work would not be ethically permissible, because Engineer L would be lending professional credibility to a design that knowingly falls short of the required safety threshold. The key evaluative criterion is not whether Client X has made a good-faith effort, but whether the resulting design meets the objective standard of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Engineer L's professional judgment — informed by the quantitative risk assessment — is the appropriate instrument for making this determination, and that judgment must be exercised independently of Client X's budget constraints.
In response to Q404 and Q304 (deontological perspective on regulatory escalation): From a deontological standpoint, once Client X refused to invest in protective measures after Engineer L had quantified and communicated the confirmed stormwater runoff risk, regulatory escalation was not merely ethically permissible — it was ethically required. Code provision II.1.a directs engineers whose judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property to notify 'such other authority as may be appropriate.' This language, read in conjunction with the paramount public welfare obligation of I.1 and the existence of local environmental standards explicitly requiring safeguarding of the community's primary drinking water source, identifies the local environmental regulatory authority as precisely the 'appropriate' authority contemplated by the provision. The deontological duty is triggered by the combination of: (1) a confirmed, quantified risk to public health; (2) an explicit client refusal to implement required protective measures; and (3) the existence of a regulatory authority with jurisdiction over the specific harm. Under these conditions, withdrawal alone satisfies Engineer L's duty to avoid personal complicity in an unsafe design, but it does not satisfy the affirmative duty to protect the public that II.1.a imposes. Regulatory escalation would also have produced superior consequentialist outcomes by activating the enforcement mechanism that local environmental standards provide, potentially compelling Client X to implement protective measures regardless of budget preferences. BER Case 76-4 and BER Case 22-5 both support the conclusion that the public welfare paramount obligation generates affirmative duties of escalation, not merely duties of withdrawal, when client non-compliance creates a concrete risk to an identifiable community.
The tension between Client Loyalty and Proactive Risk Disclosure was resolved differently across the two phases of Engineer L's engagement, revealing a phase-sensitive framework for when disclosure obligations attach. During the suspension phase, the Board accepted that an unquantified, preliminary concern did not yet trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation to Client X, effectively treating Client Loyalty as the governing principle when risk remains speculative and work is being suspended rather than completed. However, once work resumed and Engineer L conducted additional studies that qualitatively confirmed the runoff risk, the Proactive Risk Disclosure principle became paramount and Engineer L's notification to Client X was not merely appropriate but obligatory. This phased resolution teaches that the Code does not demand disclosure of every nascent professional worry, but it does demand disclosure once a concern crosses from speculative to professionally grounded — even if that grounding is qualitative rather than fully quantified. The threshold is professional judgment, not mathematical certainty. Critically, however, the Board's resolution leaves unaddressed whether the suspension period itself created a disclosure gap that was ethically problematic in light of the historic rainfall event that occurred during that gap, suggesting the phase-sensitive framework may be under-inclusive when external risk conditions escalate independently of the engineer's analytical progress.
The principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives and the principle of Client Loyalty are not merely in tension in this case — they are structurally incompatible once Client X refuses to implement protective measures after Engineer L has confirmed and communicated the stormwater runoff risk. The Board's implicit conclusion that it would not be ethical for Engineer L to continue working under those conditions reflects the Code's hierarchy: when a client's directive would result in a design that endangers public health — specifically the drinking water supply of a community — the engineer's obligation to hold public welfare paramount under Canon I.1 overrides the faithful agent obligation under Canon I.4. This case reinforces the precedent established in BER Case 84-5, where continuing to work after a client overrides safety-critical professional judgment was found to be a failure of the engineer's non-acquiescence obligation. The synthesis here is that Client Loyalty is a bounded principle: it governs the engineer's conduct within the space of professionally and ethically permissible client service, but it cannot authorize the engineer to become an instrument of a design that the engineer has identified as posing unmitigated risk to public health. Withdrawal is not merely one option among several — it is the minimum ethically required response when the client refuses safeguards that the engineer has determined are necessary. Whether withdrawal alone is sufficient, or whether escalation to regulatory authorities is also required, remains the unresolved frontier of this principle tension.
The principle of Environmental Stewardship applied to drinking water watershed protection and the principle of Client Loyalty interact in this case to expose a gap in the Board's explicit conclusions: neither conclusion addresses whether Engineer L's obligations extend beyond the client relationship to encompass direct notification of regulatory authorities. The Code's confidentiality expectations, while real, are not absolute — they yield when public safety is at stake, as reflected in the defeasible nature of the confidentiality constraint recognized in the Code's structure and in precedents such as BER Case 76-4. When Client X refuses protective measures and explicitly defers regulatory compliance to a future contingency, the unmitigated risk to the community's primary drinking water source does not disappear with Engineer L's withdrawal — it persists and may worsen as the project proceeds under less safety-conscious direction. Environmental Stewardship, understood as an active rather than passive obligation, requires Engineer L not merely to refrain from contributing to the harm but to take affirmative steps to prevent it where the engineer possesses unique knowledge of a confirmed risk. The synthesis of these principles suggests that the Code, properly interpreted in light of Canon I.1 and the local environmental standards requiring safeguarding of public water sources, supports — and may require — escalation to regulatory authorities as the final expression of the engineer's paramount public welfare obligation when client-level remediation has been exhausted. Client Loyalty, having already been overridden by the withdrawal obligation, cannot serve as a shield against this further duty. The confidentiality constraint is defeasible precisely in circumstances like these, where the safety of a community's drinking water is at stake and the client has affirmatively refused to act.
Continue Work Despite Refusal (Action 6) → Potential Public Safety Risk Materializes
Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X without voicing concern about the preliminary, unquantified risk of stormwater impact to the community drinking water source?
Engineer L's obligation to disclose preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X at the time of work suspension, when the risk had not yet been analytically confirmed but was grounded in professional expertise directed at a specific harm pathway — the community's primary drinking water source.
Disclose preliminary stormwater runoff concern to Client X in qualified terms at the time of work suspension, noting its unquantified nature and recommending quantification upon resumption
Cease work as requested by Client X without voicing the preliminary, unquantified stormwater concern, deferring disclosure until the risk can be analytically grounded upon resumption
Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X's project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary to protect the community's primary drinking water source?
Engineer L's obligation to withdraw from the project and refuse continued work after Client X explicitly refuses to implement the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to protect the community drinking water watershed, following qualitative confirmation of stormwater runoff risk during Phase 2.
Withdraw from the project and refuse to continue design work until Client X commits to implementing the protective measures identified as necessary to protect the community drinking water watershed
Continue working on the project while formally objecting to Client X's refusal and continuing to advocate internally for implementation of the identified protective measures
After withdrawing from the project following Client X's refusal to implement protective measures, is Engineer L ethically obligated to notify local environmental or public health regulatory authorities of the confirmed, unmitigated stormwater runoff risk to the community's primary drinking water source?
Engineer L's obligation to escalate the confirmed, unmitigated stormwater runoff risk to local environmental or public health regulatory authorities after Client X refuses protective measures — determining whether withdrawal alone satisfies Engineer L's ethical duties or whether affirmative regulatory notification is also required under Canon I.1 and provision II.1.a.
Notify local environmental or public health regulatory authorities of the confirmed, unmitigated stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source after withdrawing from the project and exhausting client-level remediation
Withdraw from the project without notifying regulatory authorities, treating withdrawal as sufficient to discharge all ethical obligations and relying on client confidentiality to preclude further disclosure
Should Engineer L disclose the preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concern to Client X during the work suspension communications, even though the concern has not yet been quantified or confirmed through additional studies?
Engineer L's obligation to disclose preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X at the moment of project suspension, before any quantitative risk analysis has been completed.
Disclose the preliminary stormwater concern to Client X in qualified terms during suspension communications, noting its unquantified status and recommending quantification upon resumption
Withhold the preliminary concern during suspension and defer disclosure until additional studies confirm and quantify the risk upon resumption
After resuming work and qualitatively confirming the stormwater runoff risk to the community's drinking water source, should Engineer L formally notify Client X of the confirmed risk and withdraw from the project if Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified as necessary?
Engineer L's obligation to notify Client X of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk after resuming work and completing additional studies, and whether that post-resumption disclosure — combined with Client X's refusal to fund protective measures — requires Engineer L to withdraw from the project.
Formally notify Client X of the confirmed risk, withdraw from the project upon Client X's refusal to fund protective measures, notify local environmental regulatory authorities of the unmitigated risk, and disclose confirmed findings to any successor engineer
Formally notify Client X of the confirmed risk and continue working on the project while advocating internally for protective measures, on the basis that continued engagement preserves Engineer L's influence over the design
When Engineer L discloses the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to Client X after resuming work, should Engineer L also disclose the pre-suspension history of the preliminary concern — including that the concern existed before the suspension and before the historic rainfall event — so that Client X can make a fully informed decision about the risk's origins and trajectory?
Engineer L's obligation to report objectively and completely on the stormwater runoff risk findings — including the developmental history of the concern — and whether post-resumption disclosure that omits the pre-suspension history of concern constitutes a misleading material omission under the Code.
Disclose the confirmed stormwater risk to Client X together with the pre-suspension history of the preliminary concern, including that the concern predated the historic rainfall event and that it informed the decision to conduct additional studies upon resumption
Disclose only the currently confirmed stormwater risk findings to Client X without reference to the pre-suspension preliminary concern, treating the earlier concern as a sub-threshold professional intuition that does not require retrospective disclosure
Should Engineer L disclose preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X when Client X requests suspension of work, even though the risk has not yet been formally quantified?
Engineer L's obligation to disclose preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X at the moment of project suspension
Communicate preliminary stormwater runoff concern to Client X in qualified terms at the moment of suspension, recommending quantification upon resumption
Withhold preliminary unquantified concern from Client X during suspension and defer disclosure until risk is formally confirmed upon resumption
After Client X refuses to invest in protective measures for a confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community's primary drinking water source, should Engineer L withdraw from the project and notify local environmental regulatory authorities, or continue working while advocating internally for protective measures?
Engineer L's obligation to withdraw from the project and escalate confirmed stormwater runoff risk to regulatory authorities after Client X refuses to implement protective measures
Withdraw from the project and notify local environmental regulatory authorities of the confirmed, unmitigated stormwater runoff risk to the community's drinking water source
Continue working on the project while formally objecting to Client X and advocating internally for implementation of protective measures
Withdraw from the project without notifying regulatory authorities, relying on withdrawal alone to discharge ethical obligations
After withdrawing from the project, should Engineer L ensure that any successor engineer is made aware of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk and Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures before that engineer assumes project responsibility?
Engineer L's obligation to disclose Client X's budget constraints and refusal of protective measures to any successor engineer who assumes responsibility for the project after Engineer L's withdrawal
Document confirmed risk findings and disclose them to any successor engineer before that engineer assumes project responsibility, and treat Client X's refusal to permit such disclosure as an additional ground for regulatory escalation
Withdraw from the project without notifying any successor engineer, treating confidentiality obligations to Client X as precluding disclosure of project risk findings to third parties
{'type': 'Private developer', 'project': 'Residential condominium development'}
Commissioned environmental engineering analysis for residential condominium development adjacent to protected wetlands; received verbal disclosure of threatened bird species concern from Engineer A.
{'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A BER Case 07-6 Environmental Engineering Consultant'}
Engineer A was a principal in an environmental engineering firm and was requested by a developer client to prepare an analysis of a piece of property adjacent to a wetlands area for potential development as a residential condominium
Engineer A BER 07-6 Environmental Consulting Competence
Engineer A possessed domain expertise in environmental engineering to analyze property adjacent to wetlands for residential development suitability and ecological impact
Applied in environmental analysis for developer client's residential condominium project adjacent to protected wetlands
Commissioned analysis of property adjacent to protected wetlands for residential condominium development
Principal in an environmental engineering firm; commissioned by developer client to analyze property adjacent to wetlands for residential condominium development.
Engineer A BER 07-6 Objective Reporting Capability Failure
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to provide complete and objective written reporting of the threatened bird species finding to the public authority, instead limiting disclosure to verbal communication with the developer client only
BER Case 07-6: Engineer A verbally mentioned bird species concern to developer client but did not include it in written report submitted to public authority
Omission of biologist's threatened bird species finding from written report submitted to public authority, in violation of Code section II.3.a requiring objective and truthful professional reports including all relevant and pertinent information
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority
Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report
Engineer A BER 84-5 Professional Withdrawal Decision Failure
Professional Withdrawal Decision Capability
Engineer A failed to exercise the capability to withdraw from the project when the client refused to hire the full-time on-site project representative, instead acquiescing to client economic concerns and continuing work in violation of Code section II.1.a
BER Case 84-5: client refused Engineer A's recommendation to hire full-time on-site project representative due to cost concerns
Continued work on the project after client declined safety recommendation, demonstrating absence or non-exercise of professional withdrawal decision capability
when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project'
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a.
Engineer A BER 84-5 Risk Communication Competence
Engineer A demonstrated risk communication capability by recommending that the client hire a full-time on-site project representative due to the dangerous nature of the project, and communicating the safety consequences of the client's refusal
Applied when Engineer A identified safety risks requiring on-site oversight and communicated these to the client who refused citing cost constraints
Recommendation to client to hire full-time on-site project representative citing dangerous project conditions, and communication of safety implications of client's budget-based refusal
Recommended client hire full-time on-site project representative due to dangerous nature of the project.
Client refused Engineer A's recommendation to hire a full-time on-site project representative citing cost constraints.
Engineer A BER Case 07-6 Environmental Engineering Consultant
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental engineering', 'firm_role': 'Principal'}
Principal in an environmental engineering firm; commissioned by developer client to analyze property adjacent to wetlands for residential condominium development; received biologist's report of threat to bird species; verbally mentioned concern to client but omitted it from written report submitted to public authority; found by BER to have acted unethically.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer Client BER Case 07-6'}
{'type': 'public_disclosure_obligation', 'target': 'Public Authority BER Case 07-6'}
{'type': 'supervises', 'target': 'Biologist BER Case 07-6'}
Engineer A BER Case 84-5 Project Engineer
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Project engineering'}
Hired to furnish complete engineering services for a project; recommended client hire full-time on-site project representative due to dangerous nature of design implementation; when client refused on cost grounds, continued work on project; found by BER to have violated Code section II.1.a by prioritizing client economic concerns over public safety obligation.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'Client BER Case 84-5'}
{'type': 'public_safety_obligation', 'target': 'Public'}
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns
Engineer A recommended the client hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the project because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Constraint BER 84-5 Client Economic Override
Engineer A recommended a full-time on-site project representative due to dangerous construction conditions; the client refused on cost grounds; Engineer A continued work, abandoning the ethical duty to public safety.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Economic Override Constraint
Engineer A was constrained by Code section II.1.a from continuing work on the project after the client declined to hire the full-time on-site project representative on cost grounds; continuing work constituted abandonment of the primary public safety duty in favor of client economic concerns, violating the Code.
NSPE Code of Ethics section II.1.a, section III.1.b; BER Case 84-5
After the client indicated that hiring the on-site representative would be too costly and Engineer A continued work
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns. For that reason, Engineer A was in violation of Code section II.1.a
the client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project
Engineer A Non-Acquiescence Obligation BER 84-5 Violated
BER Case 84-5: After client refused to hire on-site representative citing cost, Engineer A continued to work on the project rather than refusing to proceed without the safety measure.
Non-Acquiescence to Client Safety Override Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to refuse to continue work on the project after the client declined to hire the full-time on-site project representative, but instead abandoned the ethical duty to the public and proceeded with the project, subordinating public safety to client economic concerns in violation of Code section II.1.a.
Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
Upon client's refusal to hire the full-time on-site project representative
the problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
Engineer A Objective Complete Reporting Obligation BER 07-6 Bird Species
BER Case 07-6: Engineer A's biologist reported that the condominium project could threaten a bird species inhabiting adjacent protected wetlands; Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern to the developer but did not include it in the written report submitted to a public authority.
Objective and Complete Reporting Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to include the biologist's finding about the threatened bird species in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal, as this constituted a relevant fact that could not be omitted from a public submission.
At the time of preparing and submitting the written report to the public authority
Engineer A Project Success Notification Obligation BER 84-5 On-Site Representative
BER Case 84-5: Engineer A recommended client hire a full-time on-site project representative due to the dangerous nature of the construction phase; client refused citing cost.
Engineer A was obligated to advise the client that the project would not be successful from a safety standpoint without a full-time on-site project representative, given the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during construction.
section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful.
Prior to and upon client's refusal to hire the on-site representative
It is clear from the facts that Engineer A did notify the client of the need to hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the construction phase of the project. Therefore, Engineer A did act in accordance with Code section III.1.b.
Engineer A Written Report Completeness Constraint BER 07-6 Bird Species
Engineer A verbally mentioned the threatened bird species concern to the developer client but did not include it in the written report submitted to the public authority considering the developer's proposal.
Engineer A was constrained by Code section II.3.a from omitting the biologist's finding about the threatened bird species from the written report submitted to the public authority, even though the concern had been verbally communicated to the developer client.
NSPE Code of Ethics section II.3.a; BER Case 07-6
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal
At the time of preparation and submission of the written report to the public authority
Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports
The BER concluded that it was unethical for Engineer A to not include the information about the threat to the bird species in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority
Engineer A's recommendation to hire on-site representative (BER Case 84-5) before Client's refusal citing cost (BER Case 84-5)
Engineer Doe Environmental Consulting Domain Expertise
Engineer Doe possessed domain expertise in environmental engineering consulting, enabling assessment of discharge impacts on receiving water bodies and preparation of detailed technical reports
Applied in environmental impact assessment for XYZ Corporation's discharge project
Commissioned to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on discharge into a receiving body of water
Hired by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on discharge into a receiving body of water.
{'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Environmental/water quality consulting'}
Hired by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on discharge into a receiving body of water; verbally reported water quality concerns but was instructed not to complete a written report; later faced obligation to disclose findings to Pollution Control Authority at public hearing.
{'type': 'client', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
{'type': 'public_disclosure_obligation', 'target': 'Pollution Control Authority'}
they hired Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report
Engineer Doe verbally reported to XYZ that their discharge will lower the water quality in the receiving body of water below standards
XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report
the BER concluded that Doe had an obligation to report his findings to the Pollution Control Authority
Engineer Doe Faithful Agent Obligation to XYZ Corporation
BER Case 76-4: Engineer Doe hired by XYZ Corporation to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report on discharge into a receiving body of water.
Engineer Doe was obligated to act as a faithful agent or trustee for XYZ Corporation in performing consulting engineering services, subject to the overriding paramount duty to public welfare.
Throughout the consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation
Engineer Doe Public Welfare Paramount Override of Client Loyalty BER 76-4
BER Case 76-4: Engineer Doe learned XYZ Corporation would present data at a public hearing purporting to show discharge meets minimum standards, contrary to Engineer Doe's verbal findings that discharge would lower water quality below standards.
Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation
Engineer Doe was obligated to report discharge findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite XYZ Corporation's instruction not to complete a written report, because the paramount duty to public welfare overrode the faithful agent obligation when the client sought to suppress findings adverse to public health.
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
Upon learning of the public hearing at which XYZ Corporation would present contrary data
Engineer Doe Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition BER 76-4
Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
Engineer Doe demonstrated the capability to recognize that upon learning of the public hearing, his obligations to public safety and welfare became paramount over his faithful agent duty to XYZ Corporation
BER Case 76-4: Engineer Doe learned XYZ Corporation would present misleading data at a public hearing after instructing him not to complete his written report
Recognition of obligation to report discharge findings to the State Pollution Control Authority despite XYZ Corporation's instruction not to complete a written report
Engineer Doe Written Report Suppression Constraint BER 76-4
XYZ Corporation instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report after verbal findings indicated discharge would lower water quality below standards; Engineer Doe later learned of a public hearing where XYZ would present contrary data.
Engineer Doe was constrained from suppressing or omitting the finding that XYZ Corporation's discharge would lower water quality below standards; upon learning of the public hearing, Engineer Doe was obligated to report findings to the Pollution Control Authority despite XYZ's instruction not to complete the written report.
NSPE Code of Ethics section 2(a) (historical); BER Case 76-4; BER Case 67-10
XYZ instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report and paid Engineer Doe the agreed upon fee
Upon Engineer Doe learning of the State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount
Engineer Doe's verbal report to XYZ Corporation before XYZ Corporation's instruction to not complete written report
Engineer L Causal Reasoning Stormwater Impact
Engineer L applied causal reasoning to trace the causal chain from development-induced stormwater accumulation through heavy rainfall events to potential runoff reaching the community drinking water watershed
Applied in conducting additional studies to estimate risk pathways and in reasoning about the consequences of proceeding without additional protective measures
Qualitative estimation of causal pathway from heavy rainfall to increased stormwater flows to watershed contamination risk, and identification of how budget-constrained design choices could cause downstream public health impacts
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source.
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time.
Engineer L Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Obligation Protective Measures
Client X refused to invest in protective measures citing cost concerns, paralleling the BER Case 84-5 pattern where client economic concerns were used to override engineer safety recommendations.
Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Obligation
Engineer L was obligated to clearly communicate to Client X that the refusal to fund the protective measures identified as necessary created a material risk to the public safety of the community dependent on the drinking water watershed, and to document that communication.
Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Upon Client X's refusal to fund the protective measures
Client X's insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L.
Engineer A acted in a manner that suggests the primary obligation was not the public, but the client's economic concerns.
Engineer L Client Budget Constraint Disclosure Safety Consequences
When Client X refused to invest in additional protective measures citing budget limitations, Engineer L bore an obligation to clearly document and communicate the safety consequences of that budget-driven decision, creating a clear record of the risk and Client X's informed refusal.
Engineer L was obligated to explicitly communicate to Client X that proceeding without additional protective measures due to budget constraints creates specific, identified risks to the community's drinking water source, and to document this communication and Client X's decision.
Upon Client X's refusal to fund additional protective measures
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Engineer L Client Loyalty vs Public Safety Priority Constraint Confirmed Risk Phase
The conflict between Canon I.1 (public safety paramount) and Canon I.4 (faithful agent to client) is resolved by the priority constraint in favor of public safety when confirmed risk exists and the client refuses to act.
Client Loyalty vs. Public Safety Priority Constraint
The priority constraint establishing public safety paramountcy over client fidelity is activated in Phase 2 when confirmed stormwater runoff risk is identified and Client X refuses protective measures; Engineer L's faithful agent obligation to Client X is constrained and overridden by the paramount public safety obligation.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canons I.1 and I.4; BER Case 76-4; BER Case 84-5
the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee
Phase 2 of the project, following confirmation of stormwater runoff risk and Client X's refusal to fund protective measures
Engineer L Client Non-Compliance Insistence - Safeguards Refusal
From Client X's refusal to invest in protective measures through the BER's ethical determination
Client X's explicit direction to Engineer L to proceed with the project without implementing the protective measures identified as necessary to address confirmed stormwater runoff risk
BER conclusion that Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce
Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L
Client X refuses to invest in protective measures identified by Engineer L and insists on project continuation
Engineer L Client Relationship with Client X
From initial contract execution through the entire scenario including suspension and resumption
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system
Engineer L's contractual professional relationship with Client X for stormwater management system design
Not terminated within the scenario timeframe
Engineer L contracted by Client X to design a stormwater management system
Engineer L Competence Obligation Stormwater Risk Assessment
Engineer L has many years of experience in stormwater control design and was contracted specifically for this expertise. The obligation to apply that competence fully to risk assessment — including before work suspension and upon resumption — is inherent to the professional engagement.
Engineer L was obligated to apply specialized stormwater design competence to conduct thorough risk assessment of potential impacts to the community drinking water source, including quantitative analysis of stormwater runoff risks under various rainfall scenarios.
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design.
Throughout the design engagement, including preliminary design phase and post-resumption studies
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time.
Engineer L Competing Duties - Public Safety vs. Client Fidelity
Throughout the case, intensifying after confirmation of stormwater runoff risk and Client X's refusal of safeguards
Engineer L's professional obligation conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1 (public safety paramount) and Canon I.4 (faithful agent to client)
BER determination that Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's demands
Client X's insistence to proceed without safeguards after Engineer L identifies and communicates confirmed risk
Engineer L Competing Duties Between Client and Public
From the point Engineer L identifies the risk through the end of the scenario, intensifying after Client X refuses safeguards
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered
Engineer L's simultaneous obligations to serve Client X's project directives and to protect public safety and comply with environmental standards
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards
Client X refuses additional protective measures while Engineer L has documented risk to community drinking water source and applicable regulatory obligations
Engineer L Confidential Client Information Constraint Regulatory Disclosure Boundary
Engineer L holds client financial and project information in confidence, but the confirmed public safety risk to the community drinking water source creates a situation where the confidentiality constraint yields to the paramount public safety obligation.
Confidential Client Information Constraint
Engineer L's obligation to maintain client confidentiality is bounded by the overriding public safety obligation; when Client X refuses to address confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source, the confidentiality constraint is overridden by the duty to disclose to regulatory authorities.
NSPE Code of Ethics sections I.1, I.4, III.4; BER Case 76-4
Following Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and Engineer L's determination that public safety requires regulatory escalation
Engineer L Confidentiality Constraint Client Information vs. Safety Disclosure
Engineer L must navigate the tension between maintaining confidentiality of Client X's financial situation and project decisions while fulfilling the overriding obligation to report unmitigated public safety risks to regulatory authorities.
Engineer L is constrained by professional confidentiality obligations regarding Client X's financial situation and project details, but this confidentiality constraint is defeasible and overridden by the obligation to disclose public safety risks to regulatory authorities when Client X refuses to implement required safeguards.
NSPE Code of Ethics confidentiality provisions with public safety exception; BER Case 76-4
From the point of Client X's refusal to implement protective measures onward
Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards, stating that Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed.
Engineer L Confirmed Risk Disclosure Constraint Phase 2
During resumed design work, additional studies confirmed the stormwater runoff risk to the nearby watershed, elevating Engineer L's concern to an established fact and triggering mandatory disclosure obligations to Client X.
Upon confirmation through additional studies that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed, Engineer L was constrained by Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a to notify Client X of this identified risk, as the finding now constituted an established fact requiring disclosure.
NSPE Code of Ethics sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, III.3.a; BER Case 07-6; BER Case 76-4
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact.' Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk
Phase 2 of the project, upon completion of additional studies identifying confirmed stormwater runoff risk
additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed
Engineer L Confirmed Stormwater Runoff Risk
From completion of additional studies identifying runoff risk until Engineer L notifies Client X
Engineer L's identification of confirmed stormwater runoff risk reaching the nearby watershed
Engineer L's notification of Client X regarding the identified risk
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact'
Additional studies during resumed design phase identify that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed
Engineer L Conflict of Interest Avoidance Constraint Client vs. Public
The risk that Engineer L's interest in preserving the client relationship and continued engagement with Client X could influence the completeness of risk disclosures and the willingness to insist on protective measures against client resistance.
Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
Engineer L is constrained by ethics code provisions to avoid allowing the financial interest in maintaining the client relationship with Client X to compromise the independent professional judgment required to protect public safety and make complete disclosures.
NSPE Code of Ethics conflict of interest provisions; ethics code provisions on independent professional judgment
Throughout the project engagement, particularly when Client X's financial pressures create incentives for Engineer L to defer to client preferences
In their communications about the suspension, Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source.
Engineer L Defeasible Confidentiality Constraint Safety Override
The defeasibility of Engineer L's confidentiality constraint is triggered when Client X insists on proceeding without safeguards, converting the confidentiality obligation from binding to overridden by the paramount public safety obligation requiring regulatory disclosure.
Engineer L's confidentiality obligation to Client X is a defeasible constraint that is overridden when public safety requires disclosure of unmitigated risks to regulatory authorities, with the override condition triggered by Client X's refusal to implement required protective measures.
NSPE Code of Ethics public safety exception to confidentiality; BER Case 76-4; professional ethics defeasibility doctrine
Activated at the point of Client X's explicit refusal to implement protective measures
Engineer L Disclosure Obligation Post Resumption Risk Notification
After resuming work and conducting additional studies following a historic heavy rainfall event, Engineer L notified Client X of the identified risk and recommended additional protective measures consistent with local environmental standards.
Engineer L was obligated to notify Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source, and to advise on additional protective measures.
Upon resumption of work and completion of additional risk studies
Engineer L Duty To Report Regulatory Authorities Watershed Risk
Local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources. Client X's refusal to act and stated intent to address compliance issues later creates a situation where Engineer L's duty to report to regulatory authorities is triggered to protect the public drinking water supply.
Engineer L bears a duty to report the identified risk of stormwater runoff impact to the community drinking water source to relevant environmental or pollution control authorities, particularly given Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and stated intent to defer compliance.
local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources
Upon Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and stated deferral of compliance
Engineer L Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint Watershed Protection
Engineer L advised Client X that additional protective measures should be considered in light of local environmental standards requiring protection of public water sources; Client X's budget constraints do not override these regulatory requirements.
Environmental Regulatory Compliance Constraint
Local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources constrain Engineer L's design options and impose a regulatory floor below which the stormwater management system cannot fall, regardless of Client X's budget preferences.
Local environmental standards; NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case 22-5; BER Case 20-4
Several recent cases, including BER Case 22-5 and BER Case 20-4, emphasize an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water
Throughout the project, applicable to both Phase 1 and Phase 2 design work
Engineer L Ethical Conduct Obligation Suspension Communications
Engineer L's omission of the identified preliminary risk from work suspension communications with Client X represents a failure of ethical conduct, as the information was material to Client X's decision-making and to the protection of the affected community.
Engineer L was obligated to conduct the work suspension communications with Client X in an ethically complete manner, which required disclosing the identified preliminary risk concern to the community drinking water source rather than omitting it from suspension discussions.
During work suspension communications with Client X
Engineer L Ethical Dilemma - Disclosure and Project Continuation
Throughout the case from initial concern through BER determination
Engineer L's ethical dilemma involving competing obligations to public safety, client fidelity, truthful reporting, and professional integrity across two phases of the project
BER ethical determination providing guidance on Engineer L's obligations
Beyond this basic ethical dilemma, the case invites consideration of ethical disclosure, and how the engineer should best handle the conflict
Engineer L's identification of stormwater runoff risk and Client X's subsequent refusal to implement safeguards
Engineer L Ethical Perception Stormwater Risk
Engineer L demonstrated ethical perception by recognizing the ethically salient features of the stormwater risk situation — including the potential harm to a community's drinking water supply and the ethical incompleteness of suspension communications
Manifested during preliminary design phase risk identification and during client communications about budget constraints and protective measures
Recognition during preliminary design that increased stormwater risk had ethical implications for the community, and later recognition that Client X's refusal of protective measures created a public welfare concern
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase.
Engineer L was obligated to conduct the work suspension communications with Client X in an ethically complete manner, which required disclosing the identified risk.
Engineer L Ethical Reasoning Public Welfare
Engineer L possessed ethical reasoning capability to deliberate on the conflict between client financial preferences and public welfare obligations, and to reach justified conclusions about the primacy of public safety
Applied throughout the case in navigating tensions between client service obligations and public welfare protection duties
Deliberation on whether to disclose risks during suspension, assessment of client refusal to implement protective measures, and reasoning about obligations to the affected community
Despite Engineer L's concerns, Client X insists on proceeding without added safeguards.
Engineer L was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — specifically the small community's drinking water supply.
Engineer L Explanation Generation Risk Disclosure
Engineer L possessed the capability to generate clear explanations and justifications for identified risks and recommended protective measures, enabling transparent communication with Client X about the basis for safety recommendations
Exercised when Engineer L communicated risk findings and protective measure recommendations to Client X upon project resumption
Notification to Client X of qualitatively estimated risk with advisory on additional protective measures and reference to local environmental standards as justification
Engineer L Fact-Grounded Opinion Constraint Phase 1 Suspension
Engineer L had a preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk during Phase 1 but had not developed the work to a point where risks could be assessed; the concern did not rise to the level of 'fact' required for mandatory disclosure under the Code.
During Phase 1, Engineer L's preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk did not constitute an established fact, and therefore Code section II.3.b constrained Engineer L from being required to disclose this concern as a professional finding; disclosure was prudent but not ethically mandated.
NSPE Code of Ethics section II.3.b; BER Case 07-6
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development
Phase 1 of the project, prior to work suspension and before additional studies were conducted
Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts
the BER's view is that, while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code
Engineer L Fact-Grounded Opinion Obligation Phase 1 Concern
Engineer L identified a potential increased risk to the community drinking water source during preliminary design but suspended work at client request before completing analysis sufficient to establish the concern as fact.
Fact-Grounded Technical Opinion Obligation
Engineer L was not obligated under the Code to disclose preliminary concerns about increased stormwater risk during Phase 1 because those concerns had not been developed to the level of established technical fact, and Code section II.3.b limits public technical opinions to those founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact.'
During the preliminary design phase prior to work suspension
per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
the BER's view is that, while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code.
Engineer L Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Phase 1
Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Capability
Engineer L demonstrated the capability to correctly assess that Phase 1 concerns about increased stormwater risk had not yet risen to the level of disclosable fact, correctly calibrating disclosure obligations accordingly
During Phase 1 work suspension, Engineer L had concerns about increased stormwater risk but had not completed sufficient analysis to establish facts
Recognition that preliminary concerns during Phase 1 did not constitute established technical facts sufficient to trigger mandatory disclosure obligations under Code section II.3.b
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development. Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact'
Engineer L Fact-Opinion Threshold Discrimination Phase 2
Engineer L demonstrated the capability to recognize that additional studies during Phase 2 elevated the stormwater runoff concern to the level of confirmed fact, triggering mandatory disclosure obligations
During resumed Phase 2 design work, additional studies confirmed the potential risk of stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed
Notification to Client X of identified stormwater runoff risk upon confirmation through additional studies, consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a
Engineer L is later asked to resume design, and during this phase of the project, additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk is now 'fact.' Consistent with Code sections I.4, II.3.a, II.3.b, III.1.b, and III.3.a, Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Engineer L Faithful Agent Constraint Phase 1 Work Suspension
Client X asked Engineer L in good faith to stop design work; in the absence of confirmed facts about stormwater risk, Engineer L's faithful agent obligation constrained the engineer to respect this client directive.
Under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L was constrained by the faithful agent obligation to respect Client X's good-faith request to suspend design work during Phase 1, in the absence of established facts requiring contrary action.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.4; BER Case 76-4
under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee
Phase 1 of the project, at the point of Client X's request to suspend design work
When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request
Engineer L Faithful Agent Obligation Phase 1 Work Suspension
Client X requested suspension of stormwater design work due to financial setbacks; Engineer L had preliminary concerns but had not established them as technical facts.
Engineer L was obligated to respect Client X's good-faith request to suspend design work during Phase 1, as the faithful agent obligation applied in the absence of established facts requiring contrary action in the public interest.
under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee.
At the time Client X requested suspension of design work
Engineer L possessed the capability to balance fiduciary duties to Client X with overriding professional obligations to protect public welfare, recognizing when client financial preferences must yield to public safety imperatives
Central to the ethical dilemma when Client X's financial constraints and refusal of protective measures conflicted with Engineer L's professional duty to protect the community drinking water source
Navigation of dual obligations as both Client X's contracted engineer and a licensed professional with public welfare duties when Client X refused protective measures
Engineer L bore a fiduciary duty to Client X to act in Client X's best interests within the bounds of professional ethics.
Engineer L simultaneously bears a public responsibility role distinct from the provider-client role.
Engineer L Fiduciary Duty Balancing Phase 1 Suspension
Engineer L demonstrated the capability to balance fiduciary duties to Client X with public welfare obligations during Phase 1, correctly determining that respecting the client's good-faith work suspension request was consistent with professional obligations in the absence of confirmed facts
Phase 1 work suspension where Engineer L had preliminary concerns but not confirmed facts about stormwater risk
Compliance with Client X's work suspension request during Phase 1 while maintaining awareness of potential public welfare implications, without yet having confirmed facts requiring escalation
under Fundamental Canon I.4, Engineer L has an affirmative obligation to act as the client's faithful agent or trustee. When asked in good faith to stop the design work, in the absence of facts to the contrary, there is no reason for Engineer L not to respect the client's request.
the present case illustrates a conflict between Fundamental Canon I.1, the engineer's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public; and Canon I.4, the engineer's obligation to act for each employer or client as a faithful agent or trustee.
Engineer L Fiduciary Duty Client X Stormwater Project
Engineer L's fiduciary duty to Client X required full disclosure of identified risks, including the preliminary risk concern identified before work suspension. Client X's long-term interests — including regulatory compliance and avoidance of liability — were served by timely disclosure, not by omission.
Engineer L bore a fiduciary duty to Client X to act in Client X's best interests within the bounds of professional ethics, which included disclosing identified risks that could expose Client X to regulatory liability and reputational harm, even when such disclosure was not explicitly requested.
Throughout the contractual engagement, including work suspension period
Engineer L Initial Concern - Pre-Analysis Phase
From Engineer L's initial engagement through the pause in design work requested by Client X
Engineer L's epistemic condition regarding stormwater runoff risk during initial design phase
Client X's request to stop design work, followed later by resumption and additional studies that elevated concern to confirmed fact
Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact'
while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code
Engineer L identifies a concern about increased stormwater runoff risk from the new development without completing formal risk assessment
Engineer L Inviolable Constraint Non-Certification of Unsafe Design
Engineer L cannot under any circumstances affix professional certification to a stormwater design that Engineer L has determined poses unmitigated runoff risk to the community watershed, as this would constitute an absolute violation of the foundational engineering ethics canon.
Engineer L faces an absolute, inviolable constraint prohibiting the professional certification or approval of a stormwater management design that Engineer L has determined poses unmitigated risk to the community's primary drinking water source, regardless of client direction, budget constraints, or contractual pressure.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I (inviolable public safety paramount); professional licensure obligations
Absolute — applies throughout the project and cannot be waived under any circumstances
Part of Engineer L's scope of work for Client X includes ensuring that stormwater from the new development will not impact this primary drinking water source for the community.
Engineer L Non-Acquiescence Constraint Client X Safeguards Refusal
Client X insisted on proceeding with the stormwater project without adequate safeguards after Engineer L identified and disclosed the confirmed runoff risk to the nearby watershed; the parallel to BER Case 84-5 is direct.
Engineer L is constrained from continuing work on the stormwater design project when Client X insists on proceeding without the protective measures identified as necessary; continuing work under these conditions would constitute abandonment of the primary public safety duty in direct parallel to BER Case 84-5.
NSPE Code of Ethics sections II.1.a, III.1.b; BER Case 84-5; BER Case 76-4
Following Client X's refusal to invest in protective measures after Engineer L's notification of confirmed stormwater runoff risk
We note a direct parallel between the 1984 case and the facts under consideration
Engineer L Non-Acquiescence Obligation Client X Protective Measures Refusal
Client X refused to invest in protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from reaching the community drinking water watershed, and insisted on proceeding with the project without those measures.
Engineer L cannot ethically continue work on the stormwater design project when Client X insists on proceeding without the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to protect the community drinking water watershed, as doing so would subordinate the paramount public welfare obligation to client economic preferences.
Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
Upon and after Client X's insistence on proceeding without adequate safeguards
Engineer L Non-Deception Omission Constraint During Suspension
During communications about the work suspension, Engineer L did not mention the preliminary concern about increased risk of stormwater impact to the community drinking water source, despite having identified this concern during the preliminary design phase.
Engineer L was constrained from omitting the identified preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk from suspension communications with Client X, as such omission constituted deception by silence on a material safety matter.
NSPE Code of Ethics provisions on non-deception and complete disclosure; BER Case 07-6 (known environmental risks as facts requiring disclosure)
At the time of work suspension communications with Client X
Engineer L Norm Competence Professional Ethics
Engineer L possessed norm competence to store, recognize, and apply professional engineering ethical norms — including disclosure obligations, public welfare primacy, and environmental compliance requirements — and to identify conflicts between client instructions and these norms
Applied in recognizing applicable professional norms regarding risk disclosure, public welfare, and environmental compliance throughout the project
Recognition that local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources, and identification of conflict between client budget constraints and professional ethical obligations
Engineer L was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Engineer L Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning BER Case Analysis
The BER's analysis of Engineer L's situation demonstrates the application of precedent retrieval and analogical reasoning from BER Cases 76-4, 84-5, 07-6, and others to determine Engineer L's ethical obligations
BER analysis drawing on cases from 1967 through 2022 to establish ethical obligations for Engineer L's stormwater design situation
Systematic retrieval and application of BER precedents across multiple decades to establish the ethical framework governing Engineer L's disclosure and withdrawal obligations
The Board of Ethical Review (BER) has a rich history of cases dealing with environmental issues like the one Engineer L faces.
Similar facts requiring disclosure appear in BER Case 89-7...BER Case 99-8...BER Case 04-8...BER Case 18-9...and BER Case 21-2
Engineer L Priority Constraint Public Safety Over Client Fidelity
Engineer L faces a direct conflict between Client X's explicit directive to proceed without additional safeguards and Engineer L's professional obligation to protect the community's drinking water source, requiring application of the canonical priority rule placing public safety above client loyalty.
When Engineer L's obligation to serve Client X's project directives conflicts with the obligation to protect public safety and comply with environmental standards, the public safety obligation takes precedence and constrains Engineer L from following client directives that compromise public welfare.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I (public safety paramount); BER Cases 76-4, 84-5, 22-5, 20-4
At the point of Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and direction to proceed without safeguards
Engineer L Procedural Constraint Written Risk Documentation
Engineer L's qualitative risk assessment and notification to Client X, as well as Client X's refusal to implement protective measures, require formal written documentation to satisfy professional procedural obligations and create the record necessary for potential regulatory escalation.
Engineer L is constrained by professional procedural requirements to document risk assessments, client notifications, and client refusals of recommended safeguards in writing, ensuring a complete record of the professional judgment exercised and the basis for any subsequent escalation.
NSPE Code of Ethics documentation requirements; BER Case 07-6 (known facts must be included in written reports)
At each stage of risk identification, client notification, and client response
Engineer L Professional Withdrawal Decision Client X Refusal
Engineer L is required to exercise the capability to withdraw from the stormwater design project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified as necessary for public safety
Client X's insistence on proceeding without adequate safeguards after Engineer L identified stormwater runoff risk creates the ethical obligation to withdraw
Recognition that continued work after Client X's refusal of protective measures would constitute unethical acquiescence to client override of public safety obligations, paralleling the violation found in BER Case 84-5
Engineer L Project Success Notification Constraint Client X Protective Measures
Engineer L identified confirmed stormwater runoff risk and notified Client X; Client X refused to invest in protective measures; Code section III.1.b required Engineer L to advise Client X that the project would not be successful from a safety standpoint under these conditions.
Code section III.1.b constrained Engineer L to advise Client X that the stormwater project would not be successful — including from a safety standpoint — if Client X refused to invest in the protective measures identified as necessary to address confirmed runoff risk.
NSPE Code of Ethics section III.1.b; BER Case 84-5
Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful
Upon Client X's refusal to fund protective measures following Engineer L's disclosure of confirmed stormwater runoff risk
section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint
Engineer L Project Success Notification Obligation Client X Protective Measures
Client X insisted on proceeding with the stormwater design project without implementing the protective measures Engineer L identified as necessary to prevent runoff from reaching the community drinking water watershed.
Engineer L was obligated to advise Client X that the stormwater project would not be successful — including from a safety standpoint — if Client X refused to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L as necessary to protect the drinking water watershed.
Code section III.1.b requires that engineers advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will be unsuccessful.
Upon Client X's refusal to fund the protective measures identified by Engineer L
The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'public_duty': 'Protection of community drinking water source', 'conflict': 'Client financial interests vs. public safety'}
Engineer L simultaneously bears a public responsibility role distinct from the provider-client role: the obligation to protect the community's drinking water source, which can and does conflict with the client's financial preferences. This role is activated by the engineer's awareness of increased watershed risk and the community's dependence on that water source.
{'type': 'conflicts_with', 'target': 'Client X Private Development Client'}
{'type': 'obligated_toward', 'target': 'Small Community Affected Community'}
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk of impact to the community drinking water source
Engineer L Public Safety Escalation Capability
Engineer L possessed the capability to escalate identified stormwater runoff risks to regulatory authorities when Client X refused to implement protective measures, though the case presents this as an unfulfilled obligation
Required when Client X refused additional protective measures and insisted on proceeding without safeguards, creating a public welfare escalation obligation
Obligation to report to relevant environmental regulatory authorities when Client X insisted on proceeding without safeguards despite identified risks to community drinking water
Engineer L bears a duty to report the identified risk of stormwater runoff impact to the community drinking water source to relevant environmental authorities.
Engineer L was obligated to escalate the identified stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source to appropriate regulatory or public safety authorities.
Engineer L Public Safety Escalation Constraint Client X Refusal Regulatory Reporting
The confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source, combined with Client X's refusal to act, triggers Engineer L's obligation to report to regulatory authorities, consistent with the foundational precedent of BER Case 76-4.
When Client X refuses to implement protective measures and Engineer L cannot ethically continue work, Engineer L is constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to escalate the identified stormwater runoff risk to appropriate regulatory or public authorities, consistent with BER Case 76-4 precedent.
NSPE Code of Ethics Fundamental Canon I.1; BER Case 76-4; BER Case 22-5; BER Case 20-4
Following Client X's refusal to fund protective measures and Engineer L's withdrawal from the project
Engineer L Public Safety Escalation Obligation Client X Refusal
Engineer L must exercise the capability to escalate the identified stormwater runoff risk to regulatory authorities or public bodies if Client X refuses to implement adequate protective measures, consistent with the precedent established in BER Case 76-4
Client X's insistence on proceeding without adequate safeguards after Engineer L identified confirmed stormwater runoff risk to community drinking water source
Recognition that Client X's refusal of protective measures triggers escalation obligations to environmental regulatory authorities beyond the client relationship
Engineer L Public Safety Paramount Ethical Constraint
Client X has directed Engineer L to proceed without additional protective measures despite Engineer L's documented identification of stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water watershed.
Engineer L is ethically prohibited from proceeding with or certifying stormwater design work that creates unmitigated risk to the community's drinking water source, regardless of Client X's directive to proceed without additional safeguards.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Fundamental Canon I — Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
Throughout the entire project engagement, from preliminary design through completion
Engineer L Public Safety at Risk - Watershed Contamination
From confirmation of stormwater runoff risk through project resolution
The public safety condition created by potential stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed without adequate protective measures
Implementation of adequate safeguards or project cancellation
BER cases emphasize an engineer's primary responsibility to public health, safety and welfare with an emphasis on safe drinking water
Additional studies confirm that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff from the development to reach the nearby watershed
Engineer L Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Watershed Risk
Engineer L must exercise the capability to recognize that public welfare obligations regarding the community drinking water source are paramount over faithful agent duties to Client X when Client X refuses adequate protective measures
Engineer L faces direct conflict between Canon I.1 (public welfare paramount) and Canon I.4 (faithful agent duty) when Client X refuses to fund identified protective measures
The ethical analysis requiring Engineer L to refuse acquiescence to Client X's insistence on proceeding without protective measures, consistent with Canon I.1 over Canon I.4
Engineer L Public Welfare Safety Escalation Client Refusal
After Engineer L disclosed the risk to Client X and recommended protective measures, Client X refused to invest in safeguards citing budget limitations and stated it would address compliance issues later. This client refusal in the face of a public drinking water risk triggers Engineer L's duty to escalate beyond the client relationship.
Engineer L was obligated to escalate the identified stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source to appropriate regulatory or public authorities when Client X refused to implement additional protective measures and stated it would address compliance issues later.
Upon Client X's refusal to implement recommended protective measures
This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source.
Engineer L Public Welfare Safety Escalation Obligation Client X Refusal
Client X refused to invest in protective measures after Engineer L disclosed the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the drinking water watershed; the affected community has no direct representation in the client-engineer relationship.
Engineer L bears an obligation to escalate the identified stormwater runoff risk to appropriate regulatory authorities or public bodies if Client X refuses to act on the disclosed risk, given that the risk threatens the small community's primary drinking water source.
Upon Client X's refusal to implement protective measures and insistence on proceeding without adequate safeguards
Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.
Engineer L Qualified to Perform Stormwater Design
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer, has many years of experience in stormwater control design
Engineer L's professional competence and licensure enabling performance of stormwater control design services
Engineer L is a licensed professional engineer with many years of experience in stormwater control design
Engineer L Risk Communication Client X Phase 2 Notification
Engineer L exercised the capability to communicate the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to Client X upon identification through additional studies during Phase 2, fulfilling timely risk disclosure obligations
Phase 2 resumed design work where additional studies confirmed stormwater runoff risk to community drinking water watershed
Notification to Client X of identified risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the nearby watershed, consistent with multiple Code sections
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk.
Engineer L possessed the capability to communicate identified risks to Client X, though this capability was not fully exercised during the work suspension communications when preliminary risk concerns were not disclosed
Required during work suspension communications and upon project resumption; partially exercised when Engineer L notified Client X of risk post-resumption but not during suspension
Partial exercise: Engineer L did notify Client X of qualitatively estimated risk upon project resumption but failed to disclose preliminary risk concerns during suspension communications
Engineer L Safety Constraint Unmitigated Watershed Contamination Risk
Following Engineer L's qualitative risk assessment confirming that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff reaching the community watershed, and Client X's refusal to implement protective measures, Engineer L faces a safety constraint prohibiting continuation of work without adequate safeguards.
Engineer L is constrained from proceeding with or approving stormwater design work that leaves the community drinking water watershed exposed to unmitigated runoff risk, as this creates an unacceptable safety condition for public health.
NSPE Code of Ethics safety provisions; local environmental standards; BER Cases 22-5, 20-4 (safe drinking water)
From the point of confirmed risk identification through project completion
Engineer L Safety Obligation Public Welfare Paramount
The small community's reliance on the nearby watershed as a primary drinking water source creates a paramount public welfare obligation for Engineer L that supersedes deference to Client X's budget constraints and preference to proceed without additional safeguards.
Engineer L was obligated to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public — specifically the small community's drinking water supply — above Client X's financial interests and preferences, including taking action beyond client instructions when public welfare is threatened.
Throughout the engagement, and critically upon Client X's refusal to implement protective measures
Engineer L Safety Obligation Watershed Protection Design
Engineer L's contracted scope of work explicitly included ensuring stormwater from the development would not impact the community's primary drinking water source, requiring design that accounts for cumulative and future risk increases.
Engineer L was obligated to design a stormwater management system that adequately protects the community's surface water watershed drinking water source, including accounting for increased stormwater flows over time from the development.
Throughout the design engagement, from preliminary design through final system design
Engineer L Scope of Practice Constraint Stormwater Design
Engineer L's contracted scope explicitly included ensuring stormwater from the development would not impact the community drinking water source, establishing both the boundary of authorized work and the professional obligation that cannot be waived by client direction.
Engineer L's professional scope of practice, as defined by the contract and professional licensure, both authorizes and obligates Engineer L to ensure stormwater design adequately protects the community drinking water source, constraining Engineer L from certifying designs that fail this standard.
NSPE Code of Ethics Scope of Practice provisions; contractual scope of work with Client X
Throughout the contracted project engagement
Engineer L Situational Awareness Watershed Risk
Engineer L demonstrated situational awareness by perceiving and interpreting environmental factors — including historic heavy rainfall, on-site stormwater accumulation, and proximity to community drinking water watershed — that affected the ethical and technical evaluation of the project
Applied when Engineer L recognized the significance of the historic rainfall event and its implications for stormwater runoff risk to the community drinking water source
Recognition that historic heavy rainfall increased on-site stormwater accumulation and elevated runoff risk to the watershed, prompting additional studies and risk notification to Client X
About this same time, an historic heavy rainfall in the region leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed.
{'license': 'Licensed Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Stormwater control design', 'experience': 'Many years in stormwater control design'}
Licensed PE contracted to design a stormwater management system for a large development near a community drinking water watershed. Identified increased risk of stormwater impact, failed to disclose risk during work suspension, later notified client of risk, but client refused additional safeguards.
{'type': 'contracted_by', 'target': 'Client X Private Development Client'}
{'type': 'public_responsibility_toward', 'target': 'Small Community Affected Community'}
Engineer L does not mention to Client X the potential increased risk
Engineer L is contracted by Client X to design a stormwater management system
Engineer L Stormwater Risk Assessment Competence
Engineer L possessed advanced stormwater risk assessment competence enabling identification of preliminary increased risk during design and qualitative estimation of runoff risk following historic rainfall
Applied during preliminary design phase when Engineer L identified potential increased risk to community drinking water source, and again upon project resumption when additional studies were conducted
Identification of increased stormwater impact risk during preliminary design phase and subsequent qualitative risk estimation following historic heavy rainfall event
Engineer L Temporal Disclosure Constraint Risk Identification to Suspension
Engineer L identified a preliminary concern about increased stormwater risk before the work suspension but failed to include this information in suspension communications, creating a temporal gap between risk identification and disclosure that extended through the suspension period.
Engineer L was temporally constrained to disclose the identified preliminary stormwater risk concern to Client X at the earliest practicable opportunity — specifically during the work suspension communications — rather than deferring disclosure to a later project phase.
NSPE Code of Ethics disclosure obligations; professional duty of timely risk communication
During the work suspension communication period between Engineer L and Client X
Before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Engineer L Timely Risk Disclosure During Work Suspension
During the preliminary design phase, Engineer L identified a potential increased risk to the community drinking water source before quantification was complete. When Client X requested work suspension due to financial setbacks, Engineer L did not mention this risk in suspension communications.
Engineer L was obligated to disclose to Client X the identified preliminary concern about increased risk of stormwater impact to the community drinking water source at the time of work suspension, even though the risk had not yet been fully quantified.
Engineer L Timely Risk Disclosure Phase 2 Runoff Finding
During resumed design phase, additional studies identified that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed used as the community's drinking water source.
Engineer L was obligated to notify Client X of the identified stormwater runoff risk upon confirming it through additional studies during the resumed design phase, as the risk identification constituted an established fact triggering mandatory disclosure obligations.
Upon completion of additional studies confirming the runoff risk during the resumed design phase
Engineer L Watershed Protection Design Competence
Engineer L possessed professional competence in designing stormwater management systems that protect surface water watersheds, enabling identification of design inadequacies and recommendation of additional protective measures
Applied throughout the stormwater management system design project for the large residential and commercial development near the community drinking water watershed
Recommendation of additional protective measures to Client X to safeguard the community drinking water watershed, citing local environmental standards
Engineer L Watershed Protection Design Obligation Resumed Phase
During the resumed design phase, additional studies confirmed that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff from the development to reach the nearby watershed serving as the community's primary drinking water source.
Engineer L was obligated to ensure the stormwater management system design adequately protected the community drinking water watershed from runoff risks identified through additional studies, including by specifying protective measures sufficient to address the confirmed risk of heavy rainfall causing runoff to reach the watershed.
during this phase of the project, additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Throughout the resumed design phase and upon confirmation of runoff risk
Engineer L's concern about increased stormwater risk before project suspension by Client X
Engineer L's formal notification of risk to Client X after additional studies by Engineer L
Engineer L's non-disclosure of risk to Client X during suspension communications
Environmental Hazard Stormwater Runoff Risk
Latent from preliminary design phase; acute after historic heavy rainfall event
Stormwater runoff risk to the surface water watershed serving as the community's primary drinking water source
Not resolved; Client X refuses additional protective measures
Historic heavy rainfall leads to increased stormwater accumulation on-site, raising the risk of runoff into the watershed
Environmental Stewardship Applied to Drinking Water Watershed Protection
Small Community drinking water source protection
Stormwater management system design near drinking water watershed
Engineer L's stormwater design work implicated the obligation to protect the community's drinking water watershed — a critical ecological and public health resource — from contamination by development-related runoff
Environmental stewardship in this context required Engineer L to design a stormwater system that adequately protects the watershed and to refuse to proceed with a design that Client X insists on implementing without adequate protective measures
Environmental Stewardship in Engineering Practice
Engineer L is a licensed PE contracted to design a stormwater management system for a large development near a community drinking water watershed.
Environmental stewardship reinforced the public welfare paramount obligation, together requiring Engineer L to refuse to continue work without adequate safeguards for the watershed
additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Environmental Stewardship Invoked By Engineer L Watershed Protection
Local environmental standards compliance
Engineer L's stormwater design work directly implicates the protection of a surface water watershed, requiring that the design account for cumulative stormwater impacts on the ecological and public health functions of that watershed
Environmental stewardship in this context requires Engineer L to design systems that protect the watershed from increased stormwater flows over time, not merely to meet minimum current regulatory thresholds
local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources.
Client X's refusal to fund additional protective measures creates an unresolved conflict between environmental stewardship obligations and client budget constraints
Engineer L is contracted by Client X, a private development entity, to design a stormwater management system for a large residential and commercial development near a small community.
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Applied to BER Case 07-6 Bird Species Finding
Threatened bird species finding by firm's biologist
Written report submitted to public authority considering developer's condominium proposal
Engineer A's biologist's finding about the threatened bird species constituted a professional fact that Engineer A was obligated to include in the written report submitted to the public authority, regardless of client preference
Once a professional finding rises to the level of fact within the engineer's firm's analysis, it must be included in professional reports submitted to public authorities; verbal mention to the client does not satisfy the disclosure obligation
Engineer A verbally mentioned the concern, but Engineer A did not include the information in a written report that will be submitted to a public authority that is considering the developer's proposal.
The BER concluded it was unethical to omit the bird species information from the written report; the fact-based disclosure obligation required written inclusion despite the client's implicit preference for omission
The BER noted that Engineer A was obligated under Code section II.3.a to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports.
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Applied to Engineer L Phase 1 Concern
Engineer L's preliminary concern about stormwater runoff risk
Engineer L's initial concern about increased stormwater risk had not been developed to the level of a technical fact, making disclosure to Client X prudential rather than mandatory under the Code
A professional concern that has not been developed through sufficient analysis to constitute a technical finding does not trigger the mandatory disclosure obligation; the engineer may share it prudentially but is not required to do so under the Code
In contrast to these prior cases, the present case states that Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development.
Because the concern had not risen to fact level, Engineer L's obligation to act as faithful agent permitted respecting the client's request to stop work without mandatory disclosure of the unverified concern
Engineer L is concerned about increased risk over time, but has not developed their work to a point where they can assess risks of potential stormwater runoff resulting from the new development.
The BER's view is that, while it might be prudent for Engineer L to inform Client X of their concerns, such disclosure is not required under the Code.
Thus, Engineer L's 'concern' does not rise to the technical or moral level of 'fact,' and per Code section II.3.b, engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts.
Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation Applied to Engineer L Phase 2 Runoff Finding
Client X notification of identified risk
Stormwater runoff risk to community drinking water watershed
Engineer L's identification of runoff risk through additional studies during the resumed design phase constituted a professional fact, triggering the mandatory obligation to notify Client X of the risk
Once additional studies elevated the runoff concern to a confirmed technical finding, the fact-based disclosure obligation required Engineer L to notify Client X, consistent with multiple Code provisions
Turning to the second part of the case, Engineer L is later asked to resume design, and during this phase of the project, additional studies identify a potential risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed.
Engineer L fulfilled the disclosure obligation by notifying Client X; the subsequent ethical dilemma arose from Client X's refusal to address the disclosed risk
Formally Notify Client of Risk (Action 5) → Client Refuses Protective Measures (Event 5)
Historic Rainfall Event Occurs (Event 3) → Runoff Risk Qualitatively Confirmed (Event 4)
Local Environmental Standards Regulatory Constraint Water Source Protection
Engineer L advised Client X that additional protective measures should be considered, especially as local environmental standards require steps to safeguard public water sources, but Client X stated it would address compliance issues later if needed.
Local environmental standards impose a binding regulatory constraint requiring that the stormwater management system include steps to safeguard the public water source, constraining both Engineer L's design choices and Client X's ability to proceed without protective measures.
Local environmental standards referenced by Engineer L requiring steps to safeguard public water sources
Throughout project design and construction phases
Local/regional environmental regulatory authority
Local Environmental Standards for Public Water Source Protection
Engineer L in communicating compliance obligations to Client X
Referenced by Engineer L when advising Client X that additional protective measures should be considered, as these standards impose legal requirements to safeguard the community's primary drinking water source from stormwater runoff
National Society of Professional Engineers
Engineer L, a licensed professional engineer
Engineer L in evaluating professional obligations throughout the project
Governs Engineer L's obligations to hold public safety paramount, disclose risks to clients, and act when public health is threatened — particularly relevant to Engineer L's duty to notify Client X of stormwater risks to the community drinking water source and to consider further action when Client X refuses protective measures
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Applied to BER Case 84-5
Client BER Case 84-5 refusal to hire on-site project representative
Dangerous construction phase implementation
Engineer A violated the Code by continuing to work on the project after the client refused to hire a full-time on-site project representative despite the dangerous nature of the construction phase, thereby subordinating public safety to client economic concerns
When a client refuses a safety measure the engineer has identified as necessary, continuing to work constitutes abandonment of the public safety duty and violation of the Code; the engineer must not proceed as if the safety concern had been resolved
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives
Engineer A recommended the client hire a full-time, on-site project representative for the project because of the potentially dangerous nature of implementing the design during the construction phase. The client indicated that hiring the representative would be too costly, and Engineer A continues to work on the project.
The BER found Engineer A violated Code section II.1.a by prioritizing client economic concerns over public safety; the non-acquiescence obligation required Engineer A to refuse to continue rather than proceed without the safety measure
The problematic behavior in BER Case 84-5 was that, when cost concerns were raised by the client, Engineer A 'abandoned the ethical duty [to the public] and proceeded to work on the project.'
section III.1.b. clearly requires the engineer to inform a client when the engineer believes that a project will not be successful. The term 'successful' includes not merely the structural and economic success of a project but also the success of the project from a safety standpoint.
Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives Applied to Engineer L and Client X
Client X insistence on proceeding without adequate safeguards
Stormwater runoff risk to drinking water watershed
Engineer L cannot ethically continue work on the stormwater design project when Client X insists on proceeding without the protective measures Engineer L has identified as necessary to prevent runoff from reaching the community's drinking water watershed
The direct parallel to BER Case 84-5 requires Engineer L to refuse to continue work rather than acquiesce to Client X's economically motivated refusal to implement identified protective measures; the public safety obligation cannot be subordinated to client preferences
In summary, consistent with BER case precedent and the facts of the instant case, Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce to Client X's insistence to continue work on the project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L.
The BER concluded that Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce; the non-acquiescence obligation overrides the faithful agent duty when the client refuses to address confirmed safety risks affecting the public
Omit Risk During Suspension (Action 2) → Resume Work Without Disclosure (Action 3)
Proactive Risk Disclosure Applied to Engineer L Notification of Client X
Engineer L proactively notified Client X of the identified stormwater runoff risk upon confirming it through additional studies, without waiting for harm to materialize or for Client X to formally request a risk assessment
Once the runoff risk was confirmed as a technical fact, proactive disclosure to the client was required under multiple Code provisions; the engineer could not remain silent about a confirmed risk to the community's drinking water supply
Engineer L notified Client X of this risk. Client X's insistence on moving forward with the project without adequate safeguards creates an ethical dilemma for Engineer L.
Proactive disclosure fulfilled the engineer's Code obligations and created the ethical dilemma when the client refused to act on the disclosed risk
Proactive Risk Disclosure Failure During Work Suspension
Preliminary risk identification obligation
Work suspension communication with Client X
Engineer L identified a potential increased risk to the community drinking water source during the preliminary design phase but did not disclose this risk to Client X when communicating about the work suspension, raising the question of whether proactive disclosure was ethically required at that earlier point
The proactive disclosure principle suggests that Engineer L's obligation to communicate the identified risk arose at the moment of identification, not merely after quantification was complete or after work resumed; the failure to disclose during the suspension period is a potential ethical breach
The case implies this was a breach — Engineer L later disclosed the risk after resuming work, but the earlier silence during suspension may have delayed protective action
But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work identified in the original contract.
Proactive Risk Disclosure Fulfilled After Work Resumption
Post-resumption risk notification to Client X
Recommendation for additional protective measures
After resuming work and conducting additional studies, Engineer L notified Client X of the qualitatively estimated risk of stormwater runoff reaching the watershed and recommended additional protective measures
Engineer L fulfilled the disclosure obligation upon resumption, but the question remains whether escalation to regulatory authorities is now required given Client X's refusal to act
Partial resolution — disclosure to client fulfilled, but escalation obligation to regulatory authority remains open
Professional Accountability Invoked By Engineer L Regulatory Escalation
Compliance with local environmental standards
Decision whether to report to regulatory authorities
Engineer L's professional accountability obligations — including accountability to the engineering profession, to regulatory standards, and to the affected community — may require escalating disclosure to the Pollution Control Authority when Client X refuses to implement adequate protective measures
Professional accountability in this context extends beyond accountability to the client; Engineer L is accountable to the profession's standards, to environmental regulations, and to the public whose welfare is at stake
Unresolved — the case ends with Client X's refusal and Engineer L's concerns unaddressed; accountability obligations suggest Engineer L should escalate to regulatory authorities
Engineer L notifies Client X of this risk, advising that additional protective measures should be considered.
Professional Competence Risk Assessment Invoked By Engineer L
Post-rainfall qualitative risk estimation
Preliminary risk identification during design phase
Engineer L applied specialized stormwater design expertise to identify preliminary risk concerns before quantification was complete, and later conducted additional studies to qualitatively estimate runoff risk after the historic rainfall event
Engineer L's competence obligation required acting on preliminary risk concerns even before full quantification — the failure to disclose during suspension may reflect an overly narrow interpretation of when competence-based obligations are triggered
Engineer L ultimately applied competence to produce qualitative risk estimates and recommendations, but the earlier delay in disclosure suggests the competence obligation was not fully operationalized at the preliminary stage
But before Engineer L can quantify the increased risk, Client X encounters unexpected financial setbacks and requests that Engineer L suspend work.
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment Applied to Engineer L Runoff Identification
Stormwater runoff risk assessment for development near drinking water watershed
Engineer L applied specialized stormwater engineering competence through additional studies to identify and confirm the risk that heavy rainfall could cause runoff from the development to reach the drinking water watershed, elevating a concern to a professionally assessed fact
Professional competence required Engineer L to pursue the risk assessment through additional studies until a technically grounded finding could be made, and then to act on that finding by notifying the client
Professional Competence in Risk Assessment
Competence-based risk identification generated the factual basis for the mandatory disclosure obligation and the subsequent non-acquiescence obligation
Public Welfare Invoked By Engineer L Public Responsibility Role
Community drinking water source protection
Decision whether to escalate beyond client notification
Engineer L's public responsibility role — distinct from the provider-client role — requires protecting the community's drinking water source even when this conflicts with Client X's financial interests
The public responsibility role creates an obligation that runs to the community, not just to Client X; this dual obligation structure is the core ethical tension in the case
The case leaves this tension unresolved, but the public welfare obligation is likely to require escalation to the Pollution Control Authority given Client X's refusal to act
Public Welfare Paramount Applied to Engineer L Refusal to Acquiesce
Client X refusal to invest in protective measures
Small Community Affected Community drinking water safety
Engineer L's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the small community dependent on the drinking water watershed required refusing to continue work when Client X insisted on proceeding without adequate protective measures
The community members who rely on the watershed for drinking water are third parties with no voice in the client-engineer relationship; their welfare must be held paramount over client economic preferences, consistent with NSPE Canon I.1 and the full line of BER precedent reviewed in this case
Public welfare paramount obligation overrides the faithful agent duty when the client refuses to address confirmed risks to third-party public health; Engineer L cannot ethically acquiesce
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer L Stormwater Design
Client X's refusal to implement additional protective measures
Community drinking water watershed protection
Engineer L bears a fundamental obligation to protect the small community's drinking water source from stormwater runoff risks generated by the development, overriding Client X's preference to proceed without additional safeguards
In this context, public welfare requires Engineer L to not only notify Client X of identified risks but to consider escalating disclosure to regulatory authorities when Client X refuses adequate protective measures, as the affected community has no direct voice in the engineering decision
Public welfare obligation is not yet resolved in the case — Engineer L has notified Client X but Client X has refused safeguards; the unresolved tension suggests Engineer L may be obligated to escalate to regulatory authorities
Public Welfare Paramount Invoked in BER Case 76-4 Foundational Analysis
State Pollution Control Authority public hearing
XYZ Corporation's discharge into receiving body of water below water quality standards
Engineer Doe's obligation to report discharge findings to the Pollution Control Authority despite XYZ Corporation's instruction to suppress the written report, because the duty to public welfare is paramount over client loyalty
When an engineer discovers that a client's activities will harm public water quality below regulatory standards, the obligation to public welfare overrides the client's instruction to suppress findings, requiring disclosure to the regulatory authority
BER Case 76-4 stated that XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water, and they hired Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
BER Case 76-4 concluded that public welfare obligation was paramount and required disclosure to the Pollution Control Authority, establishing the foundational precedent applied throughout the present case
it is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare
Was it ethical for Engineer L to cease work when requested by Client X, without voicing concern about increased risk?
At what point does an engineer's preliminary, unquantified concern about public safety become sufficiently concrete to trigger a mandatory disclosure obligation to the client, even if work is being suspended rather than completed?
Does Engineer L's silence about the potential drinking water risk during the suspension period constitute a material omission under the Code, even if the risk had not yet been quantified, given that the affected community's primary drinking water source was at stake?
When Client X refuses to implement protective measures and states it will address compliance issues 'later, if needed,' does Engineer L have an independent obligation to notify local environmental or public health regulatory authorities about the unmitigated risk to the community's drinking water source, even if doing so requires disclosing confidential client information?
If Engineer L withdraws from the project after Client X refuses protective measures, is Engineer L ethically obligated to ensure that any successor engineer is made aware of the confirmed stormwater runoff risk to the community's drinking water source before that engineer assumes responsibility for the project?
Would it be ethical for Engineer L to continue working on Client X’s project when Client X refuses to invest in the protective measures identified by Engineer L?
Does the principle of Client Loyalty as a faithful agent conflict with the principle of Proactive Risk Disclosure when Engineer L chooses not to mention an unquantified but plausible public safety concern during a client-initiated work suspension, and if so, which principle should govern?
Does the principle of Fact-Based Disclosure Obligation conflict with the principle of Professional Competence in Risk Assessment when Engineer L's concern is real but not yet quantified — specifically, does the Code require disclosure of qualitative professional judgment about risk, or only of findings that meet a threshold of analytical rigor?
Does the principle of Non-Acquiescence to Unsafe Client Directives conflict with the principle of Client Loyalty when Client X insists on proceeding without protective measures, and does the resolution of this tension require Engineer L to withdraw from the project entirely or merely to formally object while continuing work?
Does the principle of Environmental Stewardship applied to drinking water watershed protection conflict with the principle of Client Loyalty when fulfilling the stewardship obligation would require Engineer L to escalate the unmitigated runoff risk to regulatory authorities over the explicit objection of Client X, and how should the Code's confidentiality expectations be weighed against the paramount public welfare obligation?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer L fulfill a categorical duty of candor toward Client X when Engineer L omitted mention of preliminary stormwater runoff concerns during the work suspension communications, even though those concerns were not yet quantified?
From a consequentialist perspective, did the Board's conclusion that omitting unquantified risk during the suspension was not unethical adequately weigh the potential downstream harm to the small community's drinking water supply, given that the suspension period itself delayed protective measures and coincided with a historic rainfall event that elevated runoff risk?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer L demonstrate the professional integrity and moral courage expected of a licensed engineer by notifying Client X of confirmed runoff risk after resumption, and does this later disclosure redeem the earlier silence during suspension, or does it reveal an inconsistency in Engineer L's character as a trustworthy steward of public welfare?
From a deontological perspective, once Client X refused to invest in protective measures after Engineer L had quantified and communicated the stormwater runoff risk, did Engineer L incur a strict duty not merely to withdraw from the project but also to escalate the identified risk to local environmental regulatory authorities, given that local environmental standards explicitly require safeguarding the community's primary drinking water source?
From a consequentialist perspective, would Engineer L continuing to work on the project after Client X's refusal of safeguards—while simultaneously advocating internally for protective measures—produce better outcomes for the community's drinking water safety than immediate withdrawal, given that withdrawal removes Engineer L's influence over the design entirely and leaves the project in potentially less safety-conscious hands?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer L's willingness to continue working on the project after Client X refuses protective measures—even framed as continued advocacy—reflect a failure of the virtue of moral courage, and how does this compare to the conduct of Engineer A in BER Case 84-5, who similarly failed to withdraw when a client overrode safety-critical professional judgment?
If Engineer L had disclosed the preliminary, unquantified stormwater runoff concerns to Client X at the moment of work suspension, would Client X have been better positioned to make an informed decision about whether to suspend work at all, and would earlier disclosure have prevented the gap in protective design that coincided with the historic rainfall event?
If Engineer L had refused to resume work on the project unless Client X first committed in writing to fund the protective measures identified during the preliminary design phase, would this contractual precondition have been ethically superior to resuming work and then notifying Client X of risk after conducting additional studies?
If Client X had agreed to implement the protective measures identified by Engineer L but only partially—addressing some but not all of the quantified runoff risks—would it have been ethical for Engineer L to continue working on the project under those conditions, and how should Engineer L have evaluated whether partial safeguards were sufficient to meet the paramount obligation to public health, safety, and welfare?
If Engineer L had escalated the confirmed stormwater runoff risk directly to local environmental regulatory authorities after Client X refused protective measures, rather than simply withdrawing from the project, would this action have better served the community's drinking water safety, and would such escalation have been ethically required or merely ethically permissible under the applicable code provisions?
Regulatory Compliance Obligation for Water Source Protection
Throughout the entire project; continuously applicable
Local environmental standards requiring steps to safeguard public water sources, applicable to the development project
Client X will address any compliance issues later, if needed
Project scope includes development near a community drinking water source subject to local environmental standards
{'water_source': 'Nearby surface water watershed (primary drinking water source)', 'proximity': 'Near the large residential and commercial development', 'vulnerability': 'Dependent on watershed integrity for drinking water'}
A small community near the development site that relies on a nearby surface water watershed as its primary drinking water source. The community is the primary subject of Engineer L's public responsibility obligations and the entity whose welfare is at risk from inadequate stormwater management.
{'type': 'at_risk_from', 'target': 'Client X Private Development Client'}
{'type': 'protected_by_obligations_of', 'target': 'Engineer L Stormwater Design Engineer'}
This community relies on a nearby surface water watershed as a primary drinking water source
stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
the risk of impact to the community drinking water source
State Pollution Control Authority Regulator
{'type': 'Government regulatory body', 'jurisdiction': 'State'}
Advised XYZ Corporation of need to apply for a discharge permit; held a public hearing at which XYZ planned to present data on discharge standards compliance; designated recipient of Engineer Doe's disclosure obligation.
{'type': 'disclosure_recipient', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
{'type': 'regulates', 'target': 'XYZ Corporation'}
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste into a receiving body of water
Engineer Doe later learned that the Pollution Control Authority would be holding a public hearing
Qualitative Risk Estimate: Heavy Rainfall Stormwater Runoff Impact on Watershed
Engineer L conducts additional studies and qualitatively estimates the risk that heavy rainfall could lead to stormwater runoff from the development reaching the nearby watershed and community drinking water source
Engineer L to support risk disclosure to Client X
Engineer L's qualitative estimation of the risk that heavy rainfall could cause stormwater runoff from the development to reach the nearby watershed and community drinking water source, conducted after the historic rainfall event and used to inform Client X of the need for additional protective measures
Transparency Invoked By Engineer L Risk Communication
Potential disclosure to Pollution Control Authority
Engineer L's obligation to be transparent with Client X about identified risks — and potentially with regulatory authorities and the affected community — is central to maintaining trust and enabling informed decision-making by all stakeholders
Transparency in this context requires not only honest communication of risk findings to the client but also consideration of whether transparency obligations extend to regulatory bodies and the affected community when the client refuses to act
Partial — Engineer L was transparent with Client X upon resumption; full transparency may require disclosure beyond the client relationship
Undisclosed Drinking Water Risk During Suspension
From the point Engineer L identified the risk during preliminary design through the suspension period until work resumed
Engineer L becomes concerned that the risk of impact to the community drinking water source will potentially increase, as the likelihood of heavy stormwater flows will increase over time
Engineer L's knowledge of increased risk to community drinking water source that was not communicated to Client X during work suspension communications
Partial resolution when Engineer L notifies Client X of risk upon resumption of work after additional studies
Engineer L identifies potential increased risk to community drinking water source but work is suspended before quantification; Engineer L omits this concern from suspension communications
Withhold Preliminary Risk Concerns (Action 1) → Runoff Risk Qualitatively Confirmed (Event 4)
XYZ Corporation Private Development Client
{'type': 'Corporation', 'sector': 'Manufacturing/Industrial'}
Hired Engineer Doe for consulting services; instructed Engineer Doe not to complete a written report after learning discharge would lower water quality below standards; planned to present data to Pollution Control Authority claiming discharge meets minimum standards.
{'type': 'employer_of', 'target': 'Engineer Doe'}
{'type': 'regulated_by', 'target': 'Pollution Control Authority'}
XYZ Corporation was advised by a State Pollution Control Authority of a need to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing waste
XYZ Corporation would present data to show their discharge meets minimum standards
XYZ Corporation's instruction to not complete written report before Engineer Doe learning of public hearing
additional studies by Engineer L after historic heavy rainfall event
historic heavy rainfall event meets project resumption
preliminary design phase before project suspension
project suspension before project resumption
risk quantification by Engineer L before project suspension
suspension communications between Engineer L and Client X during project suspension period