Engineer A has an obligation to advise the state on all feasible and reasonable solutions in an attempt to reach an amicable resolution of this matter, consistent with the interests of the public, including physically moving the historic farmhouse to another appropriate site owned by the family or another party.

It is not uncommon for professional engineers to be thrust into situations that involve the potential for public controversy and concern, either on an individual basis or more broadly, affecting the larger community. When confronted with such situations, professional engineers have an obligation to be honest and objective in their professional statements and activities. One longstanding example is BER Case 79-2. In that case, Engineer A, the town engineer, and Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the town council, collaborated on an assignment to make studies and determine final contours for an existing sanitary landfill, taking into account final land use, environmental concerns, surrounding land use, and topography. Engineers A and B jointly determined that the existing landfill space would be exhausted at the present rate of use in three years, or soon thereafter. The town council had sought an alternate disposal location, but had not been able to locate one. It then requested Engineers A and B to submit new designs for the existing site at higher final contours, in accordance with state environmental laws. After several redesigns were not accepted, the town council requested Engineers A and B to prepare a new design, which resulted in an accepted solution, incorporating minimum setbacks and maximum allowable slopes. This design would provide for a hill more than 100 feet higher than originally proposed. Engineer C, a resident of the town, publicly contended that the higher level design concept would be environmentally unsound because methane gas from the landfill would move into adjacent private property and pollute the nearby ground water. The issue stirred up considerable local publicity and controversy. Engineer C publicly questioned whether Engineers A and B should have agreed to the higher intensity use of the site. In deciding that all professional engineers involved acted ethically, the Board noted that “there is no finite answer to the balance ...

Engineer A is a professional engineer with JKL Engineering. JKL Engineering has a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determines that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to a historic family farmhouse that has existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visits the farmhouse’s owner, who indicates that the family has no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A is aware that the option exists for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns.

What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?