I think the locality is the client, and the third party is in effect seconding the engineer to work for them.

I appreciate the quick input. I appreciate your opinion, and I would love to back it up with a solid reference. Also, just to clarify, the engineer was hired by a private party who wanted a reevaluation of the flood zone around their property. Clearly there is an engineer-client relationship there. However, to revise the flood map, the engineer must gain the approval of the locality. Therefore, he submits his engineering work to the locality for approval. When he does so, does that establish an engineer - client relationship between himself and the locality? If you believe there is, what reference backs up your assertion?

Ah ok, that changes things a bit. I'd say the private party is the client, and you are supporting them for permitting support, which is pretty typical. Neither NCEES or the board for the states I'm registered in define client but essentially this is the same as any building that permitted and built, and the prevailing practice doesn't consider the AHJ as a client.

Thanks for the dialogue. Let's go back, though, and look at the situation in the legal realm. In that professional arena, "Generally, the relation of attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to another advice or service under circumstances which imply his possession and use of legal knowledge or skill." Thus, the engineer has a paying client - the landowner for whom he is evaluating flood risk. Then, does he establish a second engineer - client relationship when he furnishes to the locality his flood map calculations and request their approval of his work? Understand that changes to flood maps can only be requested / made by two groups - the federal government or a locality. So, the engineer can't change the map on his own. Rather, he has to submit his work / his analysis to the locality and ask them to approve. The engineer has done the work (the service) of reevaluating the flood zone of the locality / for the locality. Typically the locality will not redo the analysis. Rather, they will rely upon the advice / service of the professional engineer and approve or disapprove what he submits. They rely upon his engineering knowledge and skill. As a client relies upon a professional?

No. Locality is not the engineer's client as there is no contractual relationship - written, verbal, explicit, or implied. The landowner is the one requesting the change, and the engineer is at most acting as the landowner's agent.

OP,
Unless the "opinion" or "analysis" is qualified as only being for/used by the private client and/or the professional has knowledge of or can reasonably assume it will be used by others as a professional "opinion" or "analysis" then there would be professional liability as to the quality of the "opinion" or "analysis" to whatever party is using it as long as it was being used for its intended purpose. I don't think the definition of the term "client" is relative to profession nature of the work.

In the same way a geotechnical survey is performed at the request of a private party. If the private party, then in turn provides that survey to an engineering firm for the design of a building at some future date, then that survey would still be required any professional standards or quality assumed to be inherent to a geotechnical survey. Unless the survey was qualified as only being for the private party and for a specified use.

The issue with qualifiers, it that they are open for legal interpretation, so from a future liability standpoint it is better to do a full geotechnical survey or in the referenced example a full area flood map as opposed to a smaller qualified one, with the professional assumption that anyone may use it for its intended purpose.

PhamENG
I believe there is a contractual relationship between the professional engineer and the locality in the example given. That contractual relationship takes a couple of forms. First, in our state, there is an administrative code / code of conduct that regulates the actions of the engineer. The locality accepts the engineer's flood map submission for review under the "contractual understanding" that he has acted within the bounds of the administrative code of the state. Second, the federal government has laid out standards for how flood map analysis must be conducted. The locality accepts that the engineer has followed those published federal standards. In my state of practice (Virginia), the Supreme Court of Virginia has repeatedly held that a claim for breach of professional duties is properly brought as a breach of contract claim. So, if the engineer has not adhered to the state code or has not followed published federal standards, it seem that the engineer could be sued for... breach of contract.
Best regards!

I don't believe you'll find that those suits were brought by the municipality or other government body unless said government body has hired the engineer for a public project.

Implied in any offer of service by a professional is a commitment to abide by the regulations governing that profession, so yes - if I failed to perform my professional duties, I would be in beach of contact. But that doesn't somehow create a contract with a third party. The municipality wouldn't have standing to bring a case.

If you have a specific example that proves me wrong, please post a link to the judge's decision. I also practice in Virginia and would like to know more if there's more to know.

I agree with phamENG. The courts are saying how a suit can be brought not who is contractually bound. I would ask how in your first post you were concerned with the definition of client and never mentioned contracts. Then in your last post, you never mentioned client and only mention contracts. What is your real question here or are you just wanting to debate?

Heaviside1925
Thanks for the response. I've gone back and removed the underline from contract in my previous post. I was simply seeking to emphasize the word contract - not to suggest an entrenched position. I apologize.
First and foremost I am concerned about the definition of client. I have only gone on to discuss contracts based upon the posts of others. I was just following the thread of discussion. There is a real case here and this posting is about more than just debate. Nonetheless, questions about contracts and such are also relevant to the issue at hand for me.
Best regards.

OP,
I will too remove my remark. I will say phamENG is a practicing professional in VA and knows their stuff, engineering wise and professionally, so take their advice with the knowledge that they are not speaking offhandedly.

PhamENG
At the moment, as I ask about the definition of "client", I'm not actually concerned about who has standing to bring a lawsuit. My question is actually related to interpretation of my state's administrative code / code of conduct for engineers. In some planks of that code, the professional engineer has duties to their client. The reach of that responsibility seems to depend in part on who is defined as a client and who is not.

My broad understanding of the law fits with what you say. (I'm an engineer, not a lawyer!) You can sue as a third party but only under limited circumstances. Generally, third parties don't have standing.

In Virginia, a third party can sue if they can show that the “parties to the contract clearly and definitely intended to confer a benefit on him.” Valley Landscape Co. v. Rolland, 218 Va. 257, 237 S.E.2d 120 (1977)
https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-cour...

Best regards.

I appreciate the quick and thoughtful posts by several individuals this afternoon. You are providing great food for thought. Perhaps I can be a bit more specific regarding the reason for my question about "client."

In Virginia's administrative code that regulates engineers, there is this subsection:

The regulant shall promptly and fully inform an employer or client of any business association, interest, or circumstance which may influence the regulant's judgment or the quality of service.

As noted in the original post, my inquiry relates to floodplain mapping. A licensed engineer completed calculations and assessment of the local floodplain for a paying client. Then, to have his work approved and adopted, he required the sign-off of both the locality and the federal government. While negotiating with the locality and federal government, the engineer acquired a significant financial interest, i.e., he acquired an interest in properties in the zone covered by his flood mapping work. Specifically he took out a private loan for nearly $250,000 that gave him the option to buy the properties later. Initially, he only had to pay interest on the loan, while the local and federal approval was pending. Did he have an obligation under the section of code listed above to inform the locality and federal government of his acquired financial interest? The answer to that question would seem to depend upon the definition of client. Clearly his paying client should have been informed under the code section, but what about the other parties, i.e., locality and fed? Does that section of code obligate disclosure?

Did his professional opinion render his prospective properties more valuable?

AZPete,
Yes. After the federal government finalized his new floodplain maps, the engineer sold the first four of them for 110% of their assessed value, much more than he paid initially. At the outset, he acquired an interest in eighteen properties for $224,000, while negotiating for approval of his flood map revision request. He sold the first four properties for a total of $120,000. All eighteen properties were roughly the same size and thus roughly of equal starting value. The total assessed value of the eighteen properties at the time that the engineer acquired an interest was right at $225,000. Today, he still owns many of the properties.

Client would be the entity that retained your services.

In some projects there might be owners that you aren’t in direct contract with.

But unless you have a contract with others they are not a client, they can be building departments, government agencies and so on but they would not be your client.

The legal definition appears undefined in the engineering law section however other areas of the state do provide a definition being a party that engages the service.

Often times flood plain studies are verified by independent agencies.

OP,
As stated, was the quality or judgement influenced? Unless the flood map was fraudulent or proven to be erroneous in some way, then there was not a breach of contract. The engineer rendered the services requested, then the contract was fulfilled. Was the client injured, no, was the locality injured, no. From the information provided, the only possible injury occurred to the landowners, who's property was purchased by someone with inside professional knowledge that the land was worth much more than what was being paid. Is this unethical? Yes, could it be criminal? possibly, depending on VA law. If the funds crossed state lines in could even be criminal under federal statue. The landowners may have right to sue under VA fraud or insider trading statues but nothing you have provided indicates a breach of contract.

jhnblgr and Heaviside1925
The focus of my inquiry is the meaning of the term client in the professional engineering context. In broader or other contexts I can identify high quality reference sources that define the meaning of client. I don't know where to find a similar, well-accepted term for client in the engineering realm.

Black's Law Dictionary provides a general definition of client as follows:
client - a person or entity that employs a professional for advice or help in that professional’s line of work.

Black's goes on to define employ as follows:
employ - 1. To make use of. 2. To hire. 3. To use as an agent or substitute in transacting business. 4. To commission and entrust with the performance of certain acts or functions or with the management of one’s affairs.

Then, in the legal context, here is how client is defined (in Virginia at least, from the Virginia State Bar web site)
https://www.vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/1...
"Generally, the relation of attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to another advice or service under circumstances which imply his possession and use of legal knowledge or skill."

This second definition is sufficiently broad to suggest that a professional engineer - client relationship would exist in any context where the engineer furnishes a service which uses his engineering knowledge, including remapping a locality's floodplain.

Now, these are definitions of client in non-engineering contexts. So, where is the authoritative source that defines client in the engineering realm? I am not aware of that reference source.

Finally, in the case that I have raised, the flood map produced by the engineer is erroneous. He delivered the answer that his client needed. However, he did not follow published engineering standards in arriving at that answer. Had he done so, the established, critical "base flood elevation" would likely have been several feet higher - and several feet higher than his paying client needed.
Best regards.

OP,
What determines if someone can be considered a professional engineer? Statute. What is a law? Statute. In this sense using the legal definition, i.e. Black Law Dictionary would be appropriate and high quality. Could there be other definitions of client? possibly but in terms on statute, no.
Using the definitions you provided -
The client of a professional engineer is: A person or entity that employs a professional engineer for advice or help in that professional’s line of work, To make use of, To hire, To use as an agent or substitute in transacting business, To commission and entrust with the performance of certain acts or functions or with the management of one’s affairs.
This seems fairly straight forward to me.
This reminds me of a certain testimony in the 90's "It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is"

So the case changes a little.

There is, at least, an appearance of a conflict of interest here. But that doesn't mean that anything nefarious happened. I'm not aware of a requirement to report ownership in a piece of property before providing civil engineering services that improve that property in the Commonwealth. I have heard from colleagues that a plan reviewer rejected a drawing then did for a house remodel and asked them to have another engineer take responsibility, but that's uncorroborated hearsay as far as it goes for this conversation, and I'm not sure if that official was acting within their proper authority or not. It's not a case that comes up too often - not many of us are fortunate enough to make major modifications to our property that require our own services much. But back to the point - just because you may benefit doesn't mean you'll lie about it. The engineer absolutely should have disclosed any financial interest in the success of the project, but that has nothing to do with duty to a client, it has to do with duty to the health and welfare of the public. If the decision of a $450k profit vs a $250k loss hinges on whether or not I consider a few data points or whether I round an answer up or down...the regulator/zoning officials who might consider my work product as they reach their decision should be aware of that potential influence.

As for a definition of client, Black's Law dictionary is probably as close as you'll get. You could try reaching out to the National Society of Professional Engineers. If anyone has something engineering specific, it would be them.

But in this case, I would still say that the municipality is NOT the client. The client was, presumably, the landowner. They engaged the engineer, and the engineer did the work. Once it gets submitted to the city, that's it. They can ask questions and review, but it's in the hands of the City's engineers at that point. They could hire a third party reviewer if they don't have knowledgeable staff, but they didn't hire or employ the first engineer (at least not as laid out in your description).

Regarding the bar association definition, the first engineer never furnished advice or a service to the city. He did so to the original land owner. What that landowner then did with it was his prerogative under whatever terms they had agreed to. I provide structural designs to my clients. They then pass them on to their clients or on to the city for review, comment, and approval. The city is decidedly not my client and I owe them no duty owed by a professional to his client. But I do have a duty to disclose any influence that may tempt me into sacrificing my commitment to securing the health and welfare of the public that may use the structures I design. That is the case regardless of who is considered my client.

The entity paying the engineer is the “client”. It should be clear. I agree completely with phamENG on this.

The same with attorneys. If one give me some advice in a bar over a beer, I am not his client, unless there is a contractual and paying relationship.

phamENG
I really appreciate the following portion of your most recent post:

The engineer absolutely should have disclosed any financial interest in the success of the project, but that has nothing to do with duty to a client, it has to do with duty to the health and welfare of the public. If the decision of a $450k profit vs a $250k loss hinges on whether or not I consider a few data points or whether I round an answer up or down...the regulator/zoning officials who might consider my work product as they reach their decision should be aware of that potential influence.

As for a definition of client, Black's Law dictionary is probably as close as you'll get. You could try reaching out to the National Society of Professional Engineers.

From the discussions on this forum over the past 24 hours, it's clear that there is no obvious engineering reference source that I am missing, in which I might find a conclusive definition of the term client. However, as you state, even if the engineer did not have any obligation to disclose his interest to the authority having jurisdiction because they might not be his client, he did have a duty given his overarching duty to the health and welfare of the public. In Virginia's Administrative Code, the first statement regarding engineering conduct is "The primary obligation of the regulant is to the public."

Your suggestion that I reach out to NSPE is an excellent one. I will do that now.
Best regards.

Companies with huge vested-interests submit engineering reports to request regulatory changes every year, that doesnt mean they have a business relationship or legal obligation to the govt. Regulators are free to ignore their request and regularly do so without providing justification.

Congress exempted, in the US all federal, state, and local govt employees, contractors, and subs are legally required to report existing conflicts of interest and forgo anything that could create new conflicts. If your client was contracted by govt for flood maps then you'd have an issue, but it doesnt seem like that's the case here.

As mentioned, your client is the customer paying you (or to whom you've donated your time). The limit of your activities is controlled by them. Many engineers have been sued for violating contracts which required they remain anonymous for a customer's prestige, and for violating NDAs that didnt allow talking to regulators. If your customer does something illegal you can contact the appropriate regulator and claim whistleblower protection, but that's irrelevant if your client isnt doing anything illegal.

The attorney-client relationship is a unique animal quite unlike other professions so I'd be cautious of comparisons. Attorneys for example cant simply quit and leave clients without representation mid-case, they have to request the court's permission and are often forced to finish them despite hostile, non-paying clients.

CWB1
Thank you for your input. You state the following:

"in the US all federal, state, and local govt employees, contractors, and subs are legally required to report existing conflicts of interest and forgo anything that could create new conflicts."

Are you able to point me to references that support this statement? I would be interested to review it directly.
Thank you.

James - its long past time that you disclosed your role / interest in these hypothetical questions.

SWComposites
I'm happy to disclose my role / interest in these non-hypothetical questions. What would you like to know?

Here is what I will tell you initially. If you feel I need to disclose more, please indicate what you feel I have missed.

I am a licensed professional engineer in Virginia. In our administrative code of conduct, if I see something of concern, i.e., in the actions of another professional engineer, I am required by code to say something.

I have seen something that I believe to be of concern.

A professional engineer in my community undertook flood map calculations locally. He was contracted to do so by a private client. However, to have his calculations accepted and the map revised, the engineer had to submit his calculations to the localities here and to the federal government for review and approval. While advocating for approval of his flood maps before the localities and the federal government, the engineer acquired an interest in eighteen properties covered by his flood map revision request. I believe that he should have disclosed his acquired interest to the localities and to the federal government while engaged in negotiations. In part, I support my position by pointing to the following section of Virginia's administrative code:

The regulant shall promptly and fully inform an employer or client of any business association, interest, or circumstance which may influence the regulant's judgment or the quality of service.

Based upon my concerns, I reached out to the engineer in question - twice by email and once by speaking on the phone with his office assistant. I made the reason for my contact clear. The engineer did not respond to my requests to speak. So, I filed a formal complaint with the state licensing board. In my complaint I asserted that the localities and the federal government were his clients, based upon the Black's Law Dictionary definitions that I have provided earlier in this thread.

Recently, the state licensing board has responded to my complaint with an initial response indicating that, from their perspective, the engineer was not required to disclose his property interest to the localities and federal government because they were not his clients. In short, they disagree with the broad reach of the Black's Law Dictionary definition that I provided.

Based on the suggestion in this blog from phamENG, I reached out to the NSPE yesterday to ask about definition of the term "client" in our field. Included below is my inquiry and the "for information purposes only" response received this morning from a lawyer at NSPE.

*****
My inquiry (from 7/14/2024)
Hi,

I have a question related to engineering ethics, and I would appreciate any guidance that you can provide. I am an NSPE member, and my membership number is ****** [number withheld from this post for privacy].

I would like to know the accepted definition of the word “client” as appropriate for use within codes of engineering ethics.

I am a PE within Virginia, and my state’s administrative code includes the following section:

The regulant shall promptly and fully inform an employer or client of any business association, interest, or circumstance which may influence the regulant's judgment or the quality of service.

Is there a nationally-accepted engineering definition of the word client that should be applied to this code section? Is there possibly a narrower Virginia-accepted engineering definition of the word client that should be applied to this section?

I am aware of the following definitions from Black’s Law Dictionary. Yet, I realize that Black’s is a broad source of terminology. I am simply at a loss to know if the engineering field uses a different, accepted definition. If so, what is that definition, and what is the source of that definition?

Black's Law Dictionary provides a general definition of client as follows:
client - a person or entity that employs a professional for advice or help in that professional’s line of work.

Black's goes on to define employ as follows:
employ - 1. To make use of. 2. To hire. 3. To use as an agent or substitute in transacting business. 4. To commission and entrust with the performance of certain acts or functions or with the management of one’s affairs.

Thank you!

NSPE's response (received 7/15/2024)
Actually, the courts have made the definition much broader. A client is any person or organization to whom/which you have provided professional service or advice, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BILLED OR GOT PAID. That’s one of the many reasons that the internet is so dangerous: advice given in a blog post, for example, (without sufficient disclaimers) could be received by a party completely unknown but who goes on to rely upon your advice. Similarly, a question over the back of the pew at church from a member of the property committee could create a client.

Ok, you have filed a complaint with the state board. You have fulfilled your duty to the public.

Sure seems there is some other unstated reason for why you want to pursue this further.

And that NSPE response sounds like a CYA response from one of their lawyers.

SWComposites
Yes. There is an additional reason why I want to pursue this further.

The flood maps of the engineer are wrong. They contain technical mistakes. Additionally, once his maps were approved, he sold some of his eighteen properties to non-profit entities in my community. Those entities have subsequently built low-income homes on the properties. There are now eight families, eight low-income homeowners, who live in houses that are most likely built several feet below what should be considered the safe "base flood elevation." From my perspective, these homeowners have already been financially harmed by the actions of the engineer in question. They also do not know that they are probably at elevated risk of flooding.

So, I am concerned about others in my community, and thus I do not feel that my duty to the public has come to an end. Rather, I have expert knowledge, and I feel it is my duty to use that knowledge to protect the health, welfare and safety of the public. In the administrative code of Virginia, that is my paramount duty.

In regards to the NSPE answer, perhaps I should not take it as authoritative. If not the NSPE answer, where should I look for an "engineering-accepted" definition of the term client? Clearly the Virginia state board seems to use a narrower definition. However, to date, they have provided me with no basis, e.g., case history, to support their apparently narrower definition. So, from one perspective, I could view their definition of the term as "arbitrary and capricious."

Best regards.

I feel like the definition of the word client is an odd place to get hung up here. From my reading of this thread, it seems like you believe that an engineer submitted incorrect information under their seal while having an undisclosed financial interest in their incorrect work being accepted. I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it much matters who the client is in a situation like that. Personally, I would be asking the NSPE what to do about that specific instance, not asking them secondary questions about the legal definition of terms that may or may not be relevant to an ethics case.

RenHen
Thanks! I was getting hung up on "client" because the state licensing board indicated that a reason they are prepared to say the engineer did nothing wrong is because the localities and the federal government are not his clients. I was surprised when they verbally told me that last week. As you suggest though, getting hung up on the minutiae of this term is a bit "beside the point". I fully agree with you that there is a bigger picture here.

To that end, if we all were to accept that the localities and the federal government are not clients, then why would the state board, alternatively / separately, not flag the engineer's actions under two other sections of the Virginia code as provided below?

The regulant shall be truthful in all professional matters and shall include all relevant information in professional reports, statements, or testimony, which shall include the date indicating when such information was current.

Except when appearing as an expert witness in court or in an administrative proceeding when the parties are represented by counsel, the regulant shall issue no statements, reports, criticisms, or arguments on matters relating to professional practice that are inspired by or paid for by interested persons, unless the regulant has prefaced the comment by disclosing any self-interest and the identities of all persons on whose behalf the regulant is speaking.

Your complaint to the Board would have had two elements: 1) incompetence; 2) failure to disclose personal interest in a professional engagement.

AZPete
Yes. It did. The Board is prepared to reject my assertions on both of those points.

On the incompetence element, Virginia code states:

The professional shall adhere to the minimum standards and requirements pertaining to the practice of his own profession, as well as other professions if incidental work is performed.

The engineer did not apply a published federal standard for how to confirm the accuracy of his calculations. The standard says that if historical flood data is available, it "must" be used to confirm the accuracy of the modeling. Data was available, but he never showed that he used it. The federal government informed him three times in writing that the data existed, but he never submitted a model that was evaluated against that data. Then, as a result of not performing the comparison against data, I have concluded that he delivered the wrong answer. A professional engineer working for one of the localities also came to the same conclusion. Recently, in a very similar mapping case, the federal government has confirmed the expectation of comparison against historical flood data.

So...what happens if a second professional submits his calculations for city/federal approval and which are at variance with the subject engineer's? Seems one opinion would emerge as applicable. In which case, a correct mapping that places the properties behind the 8-ball would then have a community of harmed individuals and entities. In that case, would the Board act?

So have you filed an appeal or complaint with the locality or federal govt agency that approved the alleged incorrect flood maps? If so, what was their response?

Unfortunately, the whole flood plain map and federal flood insurance issue has been a political mess for a long time.

AZPete,
It turns out that, since the time when the engineer's maps were approved, the federal government has undertaken their own technical review of all the flood maps in the region. They have published their draft updates of the maps. Their updates are broadly in line with the map produced by the engineer in question. However, I argue that the federal draft map is also wrong. Why? Because the federal contractor who produced the map made the same mistake as the engineer. They did not use available historical flood data to confirm the accuracy of their map. Earlier this year, one of the draft federal maps opened for public comment. I submitted a formal, technical appeal of the draft map. I said that my appeal was valid by pointing to the federal regulatory standard which the federal contractor (and the original engineer) had overlooked and to the available flood data. The federal government has since responded to my complaint and acknowledged its accuracy. They have validated my appeal. The federal contractor is now in the process of redoing their calculations. I do not know how much their calculations will change. I do not know when updated draft maps will be released for public review. However, the federal response to my appeal confirms that the engineering standard should have been followed and quality, historical flood data was available for use in confirming flood model accuracy.

OP,
Again, you are trying to create a definition of client that is just not there.

Quote (A client is any person or organization to whom/which you have provided professional service or advice, WHETHER OR NOT YOU BILLED OR GOT PAID)

The engineer in question provided their services to their private client. The locality (as far as you have said) never solicited advice from this engineer, ergo, they are not this engineer's client.
I am not meaning to be critical but in your complaint to the board and your email to NSPE, if I am reading this with no context, I am understanding someone who doesn't understand what the word client means. That said, I understand your frustration and I too would be concerned if an engineer was operating as your stated in my community. To truly illustrate your concern, I would relinquish your grasp on pigeonholing the word client to being some special professional definition and just focus on the facts. As was stated by others previously, what you are claiming engineer did may be unethical but may or may not be illegal. You have done your duty as a professional engineer and reported this to the board, you can't do anymore professionally, so now, what can you do as a citizen? Bring you concerns to the locality because they enjoy qualified immunity in most cases, they can change their minds on whether or not to accept the engineers finding. Bring your concerns to the local district attorney. The courts as a whole tend to frown on what is essentially insider trading. The local DA may be interested in investigating this. Bring your concerns to the landowners who sold or in the process of selling their land to the engineer, because for any civil action to take place, they are the only ones being harmed directly in this case. If the locality, the DA, the landowners all dismiss you, then you can always bring it to the press / media.

Sounds like the Board would have cause to strike the engineer. If the feds advised the engineer to use a mandatory and available resource, twice, and he did not, then the personal interest in parallel most definitely comes into play whereas in the generic sense it would have been a technicality, and arguable. In this instance, it arguably becomes a motivator to conclude in a fashion supporting the personal interest. Moral of the story: if you're going to color outside of the lines, best to do it in invisible ink.

SWComposites
I, and others, have been in touch with the federal agency (FEMA). They have said several things: 1) The window for appeal on the engineer's work has passed. 2) Even if he failed to disclose his conflict, they don't care. They don't ask for or consider conflicts-of-interest in their review of flood maps. 3) If I think the engineer's map is wrong, I am welcome to submit a new study.

While I am a licensed, professional engineer, flood mapping (and civil engineering more generally) is not my area of expertise. So, I would need to hire someone else to do the work. That seems to be an unfair burden upon me. Thus, we turn to the draft flood maps under development by the federal government right now. I figure, the feds are revisiting the maps themselves right now. I will engage in the proper process there, and try to get them to publish accurate maps. As long as I stay on top of the process, there should be no cost to me.

In terms of the localities, there is broad indifference to the issue. The engineering staff at one impacted locality has said that they largely leave map review to the feds. If the fed approves an application, the locality will approve it. The engineering staff at the other locality was upset by the work of the original engineer. They disagreed strongly with technical elements of his map work. Yet, the professional staff of the locality, above the engineers, dismissed the concerns of their own engineers and sent an approval to the feds anyway. Now, in the last 12 - 18 months, all four of the engineers working for that locality in the arena of stormwater management and flood mapping have left for other employment. Basically, that locality has lost all of their historical knowledge and in-house expertise in the flood zone arena.

Finally, you are 100% correct about the "mess" of federal flood mapping. At the time of the engineer's original work, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security (the home of FEMA) published an audit of FEMA's flood mapping efforts. They identified pervasive quality control issues and a widespread failure to apply published quality control standards. You can read more about those problems here:

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/news/press-releases/2017/0...

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets...

Heaviside1925
Thank you for sharing your additional thoughts. Broadly I agree with you and others on this forum. Let's not get hung up on the meaning of the word client.

I especially appreciate your suggestions on next steps. I had some of those steps in mind but not others. You have broadened my thinking, and that's a great reason to have posted here.

Best regards.

You need to be very careful about your next steps. Unless you have solid, incontrovertible evidence that this engineer willfully submitted erroneous documents so they could profit from the results and, in doing so, directly or indirectly harmed others, any suggestion that he/she did so could land you in a lot of trouble. Given the board's lack of willingness to investigate the issue, I doubt you have much proof.

Also, do you have proof that it was never disclosed? He may have disclosed it, or mentioned it in a meeting but somebody told him not to worry about it. May not be the right way to handle it, but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What is your area of expertise? Your tag says you're a materials engineer. How does a materials engineer come to develop mastery of civil engineering and floodplain mapping? As a structural engineer working on the design of structures in and around floodplains for my entire career, I wouldn't dream of trying to perform the analysis necessary for a flood map revision. I don't do that kind of work and don't have any professional training in it. So, you have some work cut out for you proving that you have the credibility to bring a complaint on technical grounds.

The other issue you're going to run into is the standard of care. If he didn't do something in the analysis but it was accepted, and then another engineer/engineering firm performed a similar but independent analysis and arrived at similar results using a similar method, you're well on your way to establishing a standard of care there. Of course, a court would have to determine if it's within the standard of care or not, but it sounds like you'll have an uphill climb there.

So, if you want to continue down this road, this is what I see as your best bet:

1) Hire a consultant with experience and expertise in floodplain mapping. Engage them to review the area and determine what the maps should be.
2) If they agree with the other engineer, you might want to accept defeat. If they don't, then you can take that to the non-profits and the homeowners there and show them the issue.
3) If they are all on board, you can find some more experts that can perform independent analyses and, if enough agree, then they could potentially sue the first engineer for damages stemming from their error.

But if that was already confirmed by an independent third party, they may be off the hook anyway and the whole thing could backfire - the first engineer doesn't have to pay anything while the homeowners suddenly end up in a flood zone with rates they can't afford and find themselves foreclosed on.

In any case, you need to consult with an attorney to find out the best steps forward, and talk with those who have actually been harmed. There are risks to seeking any sort of compensation, and they may not be worth it to them.

Duty.

How about duty to homeowner public that may be living in a flood plain? Since no one knows at this point, but informed multiples suspect/opine, it seems clear that a non-professional, courtesy heads-up is in order to the homeowning/landed parties that something MAY be amiss here and it's on THEM to pursue to any finality.

Once warned/tipped, they can hire an expert and off they go. If they find they are in the clear, great all around. If they find out they are in a flood plain, then this OP saved someone's bacon from a potential, future disaster. That seems to be in accordance with duty to public safety.

Sorry, I have not read this entire thread, because it seems unnecessary, because the original question seems simple enough to answer. The answer is: the paying client is the client. The authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) is not a client. If it were, then the building permit department AHJ for practically every building ever built would become the client of the design professionals (e.g. architects and engineers) when stamped plans were submitted for review as a condition for issuance of a building permit, which is ridiculous.

OK, I have now read the entire thread (time I will never get back unfortunately). I stand by my statements about the definition of "client". The AHJ is not a client, so any part of your argument or case or whatever you want to call it that relies upon the definition of client being extended to the AHJ is unfounded in my opinion.

Now, on the face of it, it does seem like an obvious conflict of interest that the engineer's conclusions could stand to greatly increase the value of real estate to which the conclusions would apply and in which the engineer had a vested financial interest. This looks especially bad since the engineer seems to have intentionally purchased his ownership stake in the subject real estate only after he learned of the potential/likely windfall. However, I still do not know whether the engineering rules/laws in Virginia would have required him to disclose his conflict of interest to anyone other than his client.

phamENG
I agree that great care is needed vis-a-vis next steps. My goal is not to slander anyone. Rather, I want to protect my community and profession. How can one shrink from moving forward if there appears to be real, unrealized danger for citizens locally? Our paramount duty is to the public.

I'm not asserting that the engineer willfully submitted erroneous documents so that he might profit. As you likely know, there are different levels of negligence (certainly in Virginia) - 1) ordinary or simple, 2) gross, and 3) willful and wanton. My current sense is that this case falls into either category #1 or #2.

Regarding proof in hand, this thread is not the forum to review that evidence. However, I have examined this case since November 2021, investing 500 to 1000 hours. My work includes repeated document requests to local government and federal entities (including freedom of information act requests), personal interviews with locality engineers, and meetings with engineers skilled in the art of floodplain mapping to check my understanding. When I have communicated with state investigators and with FEMA, I have clearly identified the limits of my expertise. Yet, I possess bachelors, masters, and Ph.D. degrees in engineering. I have over twenty five years of work experience in the field. I am a licensed PE. I continue my education and have taught myself much (but certainly not all) about floodplain analysis.

Regarding disclosure by the engineer, I asked. The engineers of one locality stated unequivocally that he never explained his financial interest. The federal engineers claimed not to remember the details of the case - "We work on too many to remember such details." There clearly are no written records of disclosure. No emails. No official correspondence.

Regarding my credibility, I would point to the technical appeal I filed with FEMA in February of this year. I identified and correctly explained the technical gap in their work. They confirmed that my understanding and technical explanation is correct. I did not attempt to complete new calculations, but my understanding appears sufficient to identify mistakes in existing calculations.

You raise a great point about standard of care. I have thought a lot about that. Consider that FEMA's recent draft maps were wrong. I pointed out the mistake. FEMA is now correcting their mistake. In contrast, the engineer in question was wrong. He was informed three times in writing by FEMA that he was wrong. There is no evidence that he ever corrected his mistake. I argue that there is a difference between the standard of care exhibited by FEMA and the engineer.

Based on my appeal to FEMA, they are now generating revised maps of the local floodplains. Rather than hire consultants with my own money, I eagerly await updated number crunching from them.

I agree that consultation with legal counsel is warranted at this juncture. Thank you for reinforcing that thought.

Best regards.

James,

I'm in a different country in a different engineering profession, but have previously taken on several challenges to correct perceived "wrongs"; both professionally and otherwise. Whilst I had some wins I have come to recognise that my crusades required at least some obsessiveness which took a personal toll.

It seems to me that you have acted in accordance with the professional ethics and advised the AHJ of the problem. If it is appropriate, you could also advise the relevant professional engineers registration board of your concerns. Of course, if you can have a colleague check your assessment and support your correspondence, even better for your credibility. Both the AHJ and PE board have official responsibilities to protect the public and the necessary insurances to fend of any challenges to any further action they take.

As for those people who have purchased this overvalued land, it seems to me that you have no easy choice. Advise them of your concerns and you will probably create anxiety, risk repercussions on you and create an opportunity for new buyers to be duped by existing landholders who do not tell the full story when offloading their properties. Leave them be and they will at least enjoy their homes in the meantime.

It seems a no win scenario that you are best leaving to the authorities. Once you have notified them, keep the correspondence in case you are later proven correct and then you will have the evidence to go to the media to support any claims for victims' compensation. The media probably won't be interested beforehand. In the meantime, at least be alert to the risk of a possible personal cost of your pursuing an "injustice" that presumably will at least not cost any lives.

Engineers submit calculations, plans, etc. to government agencies for review all the time. It never makes the government agency the engineer's client. Why would this case be different.

Yesterday I had the chance to speak to a knowledgeable individual at NSPE and describe the particular situation that I have encountered. In response, they described the localities and the federal government as "third party beneficiaries" rather than "clients."

The reason I wondered if the localities and federal government might be clients is because of the reach of the particular project in question. The engineer in question undertook floodplain analysis on behalf of a paying, private client. However, the analysis did not encompass just the property in question. Rather, to obtain an answer for his client, the engineer remapped many miles of river across the locality. Thus, in my mind, the situation is not perfectly analogous to the one that many of you on this forum have pointed to, i.e., review of submitted plans for a specific building project.

I asked the question initially because it was a position that I staked out - based on the Black's Law Dictionary definition given earlier in this thread. It is not a position to which I am wedded. I actually think there are other sections of Virginia's Administrative Code that would ethically obligate the engineer in question to disclose his financial interest to the localities and federal government. Thus, from my perspective, the obligation to disclose or not disclose does not hinge solely upon the meaning of the word client.

I thank everyone who has posted to this thread in the last several days. Your inputs have been super helpful. Personally, I don't anticipate posting to this thread again. However, related to the case in question, I may start another thread on this forum. I have found many of the comments given to be tremendously helpful as I work through a challenging situation in my community.

Best regards.

I'm curious, why have you invested 500-1000hrs on this?

I think it goes without saying that the provision of the NSPE code quoted below would apply to any governmental agency RELYING ON the engineer's work that was presented to the governmental agency. The engineer and his client should have stated, "Mr Smithson, here, owns 55 acres in this basin, Lots XY12 through XZ15". The agency could have told the client to get another engineer to provide a new report or have Mr Stmithson unburden himself of the property before the agency rendered judgment.
NSPE Code: "Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services."

If I had bought property from that engineer, I would be furious. The level of flood risk is one of my highest concerns when buying a house or other property.

NOLAscience, I tend to agree with you that the engineer should have disclosed his conflict of interest, but whether he was legally required to by the engineering laws and rules in his state, I don't know. I don't believe the NSPE ethics code has any legal standing.

In my home state we have this requirement which is legally binding:

"The engineer or land surveyor shall avoid conflicts of interest. The engineer or land surveyor shall conscientiously avoid conflict of interest with his/her employer or client, but, when unavoidable, the engineer or land surveyor shall forthwith disclose the circumstances to his employer or client."

The first part of it seems pretty straight forward, "The engineer or land surveyor shall avoid conflicts of interest." However, the second part talks about disclosing conflicts to clients and employers. I'm sure a lawyer representing and engineer accused of a conflict of interest would probably argue that the first part of the requirement and the second part of the requirement go together, and thus as engineer only has a duty to disclose the conflict to his client/employer.

There may be other areas of the law aside from engineering licensure laws that apply in this situation. I don't know.

By this theory an engineer would have to work free of charge since compensation is a conflict of interest. In my experience for modifying flood maps you have to provide models to the government agency to verify along with a written report.

What is the historical data you talk of? Typically the model is of the whole drainage basin and should be fairly accurate. How did the engineer modify the model? This would be a pretty drastic change.

"I'm curious, why have you invested 500-1000hrs on this?"

Someone else made a profit while the undevelopable land over his back fence now has neighbours on it.

Smoulder
I feel compelled to correct your flawed hypothesis. I do not live in the area covered by the situation discussed in this blog posting. My home is several miles away. I do not own land in that region. I have never contemplated purchasing land in that area. I am not upset about new neighbors over my back fence. The work of the engineer in question does not impact me directly. LionelHutz's question is reasonable. Your hypothesis is incorrect.

I invested so much time because I work in higher education, and I teach engineering ethics. The situation which is described in this posting will become part of an engineering ethics case study in the undergraduate engineering classroom, at my institution and perhaps more broadly. I did not intend initially to invest so much time. However, as I dug into the situation, I found more and more elements that were unsettling. I realized there was an engineering ethics situation of substance staring back at me. I invested time as I sought to exhibit a "standard of care" that I would hope others might also exhibit. I wanted to make certain that I had my facts straight as I spoke with students in the classroom about the situation. This is also the reason I posted here. Before posting, I had an apparently incorrect understanding of the term client. My understanding fits with the broad Black's Law Dictionary definition. However, client, as used in the field of engineering practice, is regularly defined in a narrower manner. I understand that now. Yet, this will be a perfect classroom discussion with students. I can lay out the facts of this case before them. I can present them with the section of Virginia's Administrative Code that lays out the requirement of disclosure to a client. I can present students with the Black's Law Dictionary definitions related to client. I can ask them if this engineer was required by that code section to disclose his interest to the localities and FEMA. I can teach students more professionally. That is a key reason why I have invested 500 - 1000 hours on this case so far.

Separately, I have invested so much time because I sincerely believe that engineers involved with this case have acted unprofessionally, contravening Virginia's Administrative Code. As a professional engineer myself, their actions hurt my profession. Additionally, and more importantly, the actions of the engineers in question have likely placed members of my community in harms way. Those community members currently do not understand their risks. At the moment, the harm appears to be solely financial. However, should their homes and businesses flood unexpectedly, the impacts will be even greater. Some of those who have likely been harmed include low income homeowners. So, I have been motivated in part to spend so many hours on this because I feel a duty to look out for vulnerable individuals in my community, the types of individuals often harmed by our system when it does not function properly and professionally.

Best regards.

I'm not sure you should be teaching students how an engineer has acted unethically when no-one with any authority over the matter has found that to to be the case.

Working for a client or working for themselves, an engineer still has a vested interest in a project that they work on.

I don't agree that the engineer has any clients besides the ones with a signed contract that are paying them, and of course themselves. An engineer doesn't have a locality as a client because they submit documents to the locality. An engineer doesn't have the court as a client because they testify as an expert witness. That's simply not how it works.

Are you sure it's not personal at some level?

Have you contacted your board about this? If you have, what have they done? If you have not, why not?

LionelHutz,
Thanks for your most recent comment. Teaching students about an active ethics issue in engineering is not unethical. I would start by pointing you to this NSPE engineering ethics case study:

https://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/ethics-resou...

As in that case, the current case represents a "legitimate issue of public policy and professional concern." Such issues can be discussed publicly, in academic settings, especially since I refrain from identifying the engineers in question. I am not making merely “ad hominem” attacks here.

Additionally, as recommended by others on this forum, I have conferred with legal counsel in regards to my actions and public statements on this matter. My legal counsel has stated that my actions appear to be "in bounds" so far. He has not recommended any "course correction" on my part.

Let me be clear, I am not arguing that the localities or FEMA represent clients of the engineer. I may have started this blog posting ten days ago with that mindset. However comments here and discussions I have had elsewhere have convinced me that my perspective on "client" was outside the norm. That's why posting here has been valuable. Individuals here and elsewhere have helped me to better understand engineering ethics. That is a reason why it is appropriate to communicate and discuss, respectfully.

No, this is not personal on some level. I have never met the engineers in question. I am not aware that they have ever undertaken engineering (or other) projects that have impacted me in any way. At the same time, I have seen many, many people in my community express strong concern about the work of these engineers. As a "professional" engineer, I have sought to support members of my community by lending my engineering expertise to exploration of their concerns. As an engineer, I possess some knowledge beyond that of a lay person, and so I have sought to bring my subject matter knowledge to bear, on behalf of my community. Rather than being criticized for doing so, it would be nice for some to acknowledge the responsibility associated with my actions. I care about my community, and I won't apologize for doing so.

I have contacted my Board about this. They have recently elected to take no disciplinary action. In a few weeks I should be able to request and review their case file. At this time, I simply know that they have elected to take no disciplinary action. I will be interested to see what they say there. I should be able to see the case file before my next offering of engineering ethics occurs. I will be certain to adjust my instructional comments to take into account the Board's report.

Now, before you or anyone else point to the Board's decision as an indication that I am "all wet" on this issue, let me note that there are various reasons that the Board might have elected to take no disciplinary action. For instance: 1) They may have concluded that I had no standing to bring a complaint; 2) They may have concluded that the alleged misconduct occurred too long ago to be disciplined; 3) I may not have articulated the violations effectively; I may have failed to bring forward the right evidence and argument of a code violation. The Board's decision does not conclusively demonstrate that my concerns are without merit.

Best regards.

Sounds like it could elicit some interesting responses from the students. They would represent the viewpoint of the layperson, the public, in this instance. Given that licensure and ethics within it both exist for the exclusive benefit of the public, it only stands to reason that it matters how they see the issue. If nothing else, if their assessment stands opposite that of the board's, well, that would be an interesting development.

Cool. I was curious where you stood and you were being cagey.

That case is backed with a board ruling. This case is not. There are more than enough ethics violation with judgements which could be used as case studies. Why create one?

You're discussing an engineering report that was submitted to and accepted by a national government authority. You have no idea why it was accepted. Yet, you're talking about engineers violating their ethics. How many did exactly?

Can engineers be ethically employed where the compensation level is dependent on positive results for the client? If yes, they they can ethically work for themselves on a project where their final compensation hinges on positive results.

Working for themselves doesn't require disclosure to the locality any more than working for a client would.

Your case could at best be discussed as a chain of engineering errors, not as an ethics violation.

Quote:

I have seen many, many people in my community express strong concern about the work of these engineers.

It sounds personal. You tried to create a case for the locality being a client of the engineer just to be able to clearly claim an ethics violation by the engineer. Your previous answer just said you're still going to present that definition and ask if disclosure to the locality was required, even though you keep saying that you were in error about it.

Quote:

If nothing else, if their assessment stands opposite that of the board's, well, that would be an interesting development.

I'd bet money it could be presented in such a way to ensure that result.

Quote (LionelHutz)

Can engineers be ethically employed where the compensation level is dependent on positive results for the client? If yes, they they can ethically work for themselves on a project where their final compensation hinges on positive results.

I think the answer to this is highly dependent upon the situation. Two examples with differing answers:

1) A mechanical engineer designing a product for market. They must develop a workable product that will be prototyped and tested. Payment based on success is reasonable and ethical - there is little risk to the public should it fail since it won't make it to market. The interests of the client and the interests of the engineer are aligned.

2) A structural engineer is engaged by a building owner to assess a structure they are trying to sell. If payment hinges on a positive result, the interests of the two parties may not be aligned. The building owner wants a 'clean bill of health' to get top dollar from the sale, but the engineer needs to truthfully report all defects they find. This would not be an appropriate place to have payment predicated on success. This is why I typically require payment at time of site visit for assessment, before the report is issued for this type of work. I never agree to be paid from the escrow account as that would only happen on closing - and my findings may make the closing not happen.

Jim/James6e, all of this is to create a case study for an engineering ethics class?! 500-1000 hours invested! Sounds absurd, and I am sorry to say it, but you sound more like the engineering ethics student than the teacher.

As a side note, I have never been impressed with the NSPE Board of Ethical Review cases. You only have to read a handful of them to find some truly "interesting" conclusions and contradictory conclusions from one case to another. Luckily, this board doesn't have any standing that I am aware of.

gte447f
All of this effort was not due to just development of an engineering ethics case study. As noted above, I was concerned that there were ethics violations. Before asserting that as part of a formal complaint, I wanted to be careful and answer many questions that I had. Additionally, I was (and am) concerned about the impact on members of my community. So, the combination of these issues motivated the investment of significant time and effort.

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to deride me and equate me to a student instead of a teacher. I interpret that as something of a personal attack. I would hope that we could all refrain from anything approaching personal attacks if we want a forum like this to be taken seriously.

Thank you for your perspective on NSPE case studies. I will keep that in mind as I go forward.

Best regards.

Quote (phamENG)

- and my findings may make the closing not happen.

Dual agency. One duty to the client, one duty to the public in the form of safety. The license is the public's grant of practice so long as it conforms to the public's interest in regards to safety. Therein lies that particular client relationship.

LionelHutz
You ask why I should attempt to create a new engineering ethics case study.
Part of working in the field of higher education is developing new knowledge. Ph.D. scholars and researchers seek to push forward the bounds of knowledge. That's what we do. Additionally, students often find up-to-date content more compelling. Ethics questions did not arise just in the distant past. They arise right here, right now around issues of today.

You are correct. I don't know why the federal agency accepted the report. FEMA guidelines state that changes to floodplain maps must be justified and must be documented. They (and I) use the word "must." That's what the regulations say. However, in this instance, FEMA's reviewing mapping partner failed to document the justification that may have been provided by the key engineer in this case. That is also part of this expansive case. I believe there are not only ethics problems but procedural problems by many different parties. That's also why it makes it difficult for the state licensing board to assign blame. The engineers licensed by the state are not the only parties that appear to have made mistakes here.

I have concerns about more than a single engineer. To get the remapping approved, a peer review was delivered by a second engineering firm. I have unanswered questions about that peer review. Perhaps those questions will be answered when I see the Board's case file.

I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I believe strongly that there are ethical and procedural problems surrounding this case. Again, my perspective may change when I see the Board's case file. However, at present, I have seen evidence of both ethical and procedural missteps.

In the classroom, I can present the Black's Law Dictionary without tipping my hand about whether it is appropriate or not to apply it in this situation. Then, I can encourage discussion and ask students what they think. Then, I can round out the discussion by explaining what NSPE explained to me - that the localities and FEMA are better defined as "third party beneficiaries" rather than "clients." Presentation in class, in that manner, is not personal. It's called engaged teaching and learning.

Beyond the client claim that I made, there is a second, relevant section of Virginia's Administrative Code that I also pointed to when I filed my complaint. It is under the code header of "Public Statements." The code section reads as follows:

Except when appearing as an expert witness in court or in an administrative proceeding when the parties are represented by counsel, the regulant shall issue no statements, reports, criticisms, or arguments on matters relating to professional practice that are inspired by or paid for by interested persons, unless the regulant has prefaced the comment by disclosing any self-interest and the identities of all persons on whose behalf the regulant is speaking.

So, even if I was completely off base in my understanding of the term client, I believe there was still an expectation of disclosure of self-interest. No such disclosure occurred. I will review the Board's case file to see if my understanding on this part of the code is also flawed. However, at this moment, I am not aware of why I might be mistaken.

Best regards.

Jim6e, your latest line of reasoning, related to the code section about Public Statements, is also off base, in my opinion. I interpret the Virginia Administrative Code section that you have quoted to be in reference to public statements "relating to professional practice", as in the conduct of others engaged in professional practice (e.g., criticisms of others). I interpret that code section to be about being paid to critique the work of other engineers or other people engaged in the professional practice of engineering. That's why there is an exception for expert court testimony. In the scenario that you have presented to us, I do not believe the engineer in question has made any public statements relating to professional practice that were inspired by or paid for by interested persons.

Quote (gte447f)

on matters relating to professional practice

The Code is plain in that "all matters relating to professional practice" constitutes the universe of possibilities under the practice of engineering by the licensee. So, that would be commenting on others' works as well as publishing an opinion as a matter of course in the practice.

gte447f
As we focus our online chat here on the Public Statements section of Virginia's code, we also shift a little bit of the focus regarding who needed to be told. I interpret that section to mean that the public needed to be informed.

This whole case revolves around a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) that needed to be issued by FEMA. The engineer in question was the point person on the request to FEMA, asking that they issue a LOMR. Near the end of the process, FEMA was prepared to issue an updated map. Before the new map became final, FEMA instructed the engineer to place a public announcement in the local paper. The announcement states the intent of FEMA to update the map. The announcement indicates what part of the map will be updated. That public announcement is the start of an ~90 day window during which the public can review the pending map and submit a technical appeal. The ad was placed on two consecutive days in the local newspaper by the lead engineer. That public announcement does not disclose his self-interest in the project. From my perspective, that is a clear violation of the above referenced section of Virginia's Administrative Code. Sadly, I didn't point out this specific ad to the Board with my filed complaint. Thus, their decision not to take disciplinary action does not consider this specific public statement.

Best regards.

Quote:

2) A structural engineer is engaged by a building owner to assess a structure they are trying to sell. If payment hinges on a positive result, the interests of the two parties may not be aligned. The building owner wants a 'clean bill of health' to get top dollar from the sale, but the engineer needs to truthfully report all defects they find. This would not be an appropriate place to have payment predicated on success. This is why I typically require payment at time of site visit for assessment, before the report is issued for this type of work. I never agree to be paid from the escrow account as that would only happen on closing - and my findings may make the closing not happen.

This case is not a situation where an engineer should be agreeing to compensation based on success, because their report could mean failure which goes against their self serving interest in making money. But, the situation could also include them coming up with ethical ways to address any issues and achieve success.

My point still stands. An engineer can work knowing their compensation level is based on their work being successful without being unethical. In this case, the engineer had already done work that lead them to believe that the floodplain mapping will change, so they purchased land with the expectation of making money on it once the change happened. Does ethical rules stop an engineer from making money based on knowledge they only possess?

Is an engineer investing their own money into something to take advantage of their knowledge unethical?

Jim6e, forgive me if I have overlooked it, but I believe this is the first time you have provided this piece of the story about the engineer placing an announcement in the local paper about the map revision. Knowing exactly what did that public announcement say and who authored it would be prudent to the discussion I think. I do not know the procedural process for LOMR updates. It seems FEMA should be the party to have to advertise the proposed change, since they will be the entity to publish the updated map. Why should the engineer have to run the add? If not FEMA, at least it should be the engineer's client, maybe?, since the engineer's work is being performed at the behest of the client.

gte447f
Yes. This is the first time I've provided this bit of information. I actually only figured it out this past weekend. It clicked based upon verbal feedback that I've received from the state Board about the case. I was reflecting on what they said to me, and this announcement dawned on me.

FEMA instructed the engineer to prepare the ad. They provided example language like this:

The County of ***, in accordance with National Flood Insurance Program regulation 65.7(b)(1), hereby gives notice of the County’s intent to revise the flood hazard information, generally located between AAA and BBB. Specifically, the flood hazard information shall be revised along the CCC River from DDD to EEE.

As a result of the revision, the floodway shall not increase, but the 1% annual chance water-surface elevations shall decrease, and the 1% annual chance floodplain shall narrow within the area of revision.

Maps and detailed analysis of the revision can be reviewed at the County at [this address]. Interested persons may call FFF at 555-555-5555 for additional information from 5/16/2023to 12/01/2023.

There is then clear back and forth correspondence where FEMA is helping the engineer edit the ad. From FEMA to the engineer's firm: "I also looked at the newspaper notice and I have few corrections in the notice. I will show it to my supervisor before I email you the notice with comments." Then, after the ad appeared in the local paper, that lead engineer (the local professional engineer) wrote to the county engineer as follows, "A public advertisement has been issued at the direction of FEMA and they require a point of contact so we listed you… perhaps should have given you some more warning on that."

From my perspective: If you, as an engineer, have your hand so actively in drafting the language of a public announcement, I don't see how that does not constitute a Public Statement as per the Virginia Code. He should have disclosed self interest.

Jim6e, thanks for providing this additional background. I see it differently. I see it as FEMA's statement and as FEMA's responsibility to advertise the proposed change, as it should be. I don't think FEMA should have involved the engineer in drafting the add at all, as it seems they (FEMA) dictated the use of their own template anyway and just substituted the location specifics. It sounds to me like the engineer in question had little to nothing to do with the "public statement" and was just being pushed through the FEMA bureaucracy, possibly unwittingly. They (FEMA) even acknowledge and apologize for listing the engineer as the point of contact without his permission. I would probably have been pissed if I were him. Also, who paid for the add to run in the paper?

gte447f
You've misinterpreted one item. (I wasn't clear.) The last quote was written from the local, lead engineer to the local county engineer. He, not FEMA, apologized for listing the local county engineer without confirming permission first. While I do not know who paid for the ad, I anticipate that it was the engineer. Perhaps someday we can confirm that detail.

While FEMA provides a template, they expect the template to be replaced with an accurate public notice. State code requires disclosure in such a public statement.

Jim6e, what I'm saying is that I do not think it is the responsibility of the engineer in question to advertise the public notice, and I am not convinced, based on the information you are able to provide so far, that the public statement can or should be attributed to the engineer in question, so you have not established a cause for disclosure under the state code based on this newspaper announcement.

gte447f
I feel you are attempting to stake out an extreme position. Here is what FEMA guidelines state:

According to 44 CFR 65.7, floodway revisions require submitting a copy of the public notice distributed by the community, stating its intent to revise the regulatory floodway or a statement by the community that it has notified all affected property owners and affected adjacent jurisdictions. Therefore, newspaper publications notice for a floodway revision must be coordinated by or on behalf of the community.

Clearly FEMA does not do this. Rather they expect the locality / lead engineer to perform the notification and confirm such notification with FEMA. Perhaps the engineer could have asked the localities to undertake publication in the local newspaper - and kept his hands off the final publication process. However, the engineer in question wrote to the locality to say that he took the lead on publication... and now he's letting the locality know after the fact. He issued a public statement - without disclosure. That was perhaps his choice, but it was a choice he did in fact make.

Regards.

Jim6e, OK, but once again, you let trickle out yet another detail or two of this saga that you had not previously shared with the board here, this time, "the engineer in question wrote to the locality to say that he took the lead on publication". You now seem very self assured that, "He issued a public statement - without disclosure," but you only seem to have arrived at this conclusion recently, after having abandoned the questionable avenue of insisting that FEMA should be considered the engineer's client. I am not interested in trying to piecemeal the details of this saga together any longer, but I do not think you have nearly as strong a case as you think, as should be rather obvious considering you made a complaint to the engineering board and they concluded no cause for disciplinary action.

"The county of *Blank* hereby gives notice...". That sounds like the county has made a public statement, not the engineer in question.

From what you know, the engineer helped FEMA prepare the letter. You have no idea who actually paid to publish it. Possibly the engineer let the county engineer know because FEMA didn't.

The cited code says the community must notify everyone. The engineer isn't the community so that code doesn't make the engineer responsible for the notification.

You just seem to be making up reasons as you go now.

You have not made it clear if this engineer did any additional work after purchasing the property or not. Did they submit new documents after the purchase? Did they do work for themselves or was it already done for their client?

I wonder how much of your time investment is because you always try to discuss in generalities (which will never yield a conclusion)? Aside from your posts on this forum, your email to the NSPE about the definition of "client" could only ever come back as "It depends..." because you didn't give them any details of the case at hand. A short, sharp "The engineer was engaged by a party that is their client in the usual sense. However, in these particular circumstances, could FEMA or the local authority also be considered clients?" would have given them a chance of providing something useful.

I also saw your other thread. Have you considered making complaints to FEMA and the local authorities that they were negligent for approving the flood maps despite apparently being aware of shortcomings in the methodology? Usually they have to respond in detail to such formal complaints.

Here are the facts: the engineer used a program to model the area in question and the local jurisdiction had a qualified person verify it.

The engineer always has a self interest in a project so your conflict is always present. Now if the engineer made a mistake they are liable for that regardless of if they sold the land.

Yet again you still have not provided evidence of the error made in the report. You as a teacher should present all the facts.

Like how did you make this determination?
Did you check the original model vs the new model? What changes did you see? Did grade change, roughness or flows? Engineers must use hard numbers to justify their findings and that must be presented to the agency’s for review.

jhnblgr
It's more complex than you summarize. The local professional engineer (Engineer A) did model. A "staff" professional engineer for one of the localities (Engineer B) reviewed and objected in writing to his superiors and to FEMA. Engineer B listed a set of technical concerns with the work of Engineer A. Among the concerns, Engineer B listed an unjustified change of Manning's 'n' roughness values. The locality superiors subsequently cut Engineer B out of their final approval process, sending a "green light" letter to FEMA without the knowledge of their own engineering staff.

I confirmed the concerns of Engineer B by comparing the work of Engineer A with FEMA's published regulatory process, by speaking with Engineer B who had objected, and by reviewing process documentation provided to FEMA by Engineer A and Engineer B. I also opened Engineer A's model into the software so that I could see what Manning's 'n' values were used at each modeled cross section.

The original FEMA map that was being modified was published in 2005. Engineer B contacted the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who led that 2005 study and received written confirmation from them that they had calibrated their 2005 model using historical high water mark data from the 1970's for the river section in question. That data allowed them to set the Manning's 'n' roughness values and match model with data.

FEMA regulations state: "Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses must be calibrated using data from well-documented flood events, if available."

FEMA also says that model and flood event data must agree within 0.5 feet.

For the river in question, high water mark data is available. Therefore it must be used for model calibration. It was used by the USACE in 2005. Earlier this year, FEMA appeared to confirm that they still consider that same high water mark data as valid for model calibration along our local river. How did they confirm that? FEMA has (since 2018) been working on its own, independent review of our local flood maps. Their consultants (Engineer C) have published preliminary data and opened their work to public comment / appeal. I looked at their work and pointed out that, like Engineer A, FEMA's Engineer C had failed to use the available high water mark data set from the 1970's for model calibration. FEMA responded to my technical appeal and stated that I was correct. FEMA has now asked their Engineer C to reconsider their model in light of the data set that they now know about. At the moment, I do not know how consideration of the data set will change the work of Engineer C. Based upon hydrologic study of the river (by the USACE, Engineer A, Engineer B, and Engineer C) and upon the historical data, I have a sense of where the base flood elevation will likely lie, but FEMA has not come back with new, published base flood elevation estimates. So I can't say with authority what they will determine. Time will tell.

However, when Engineer A set aside the high water mark data, that led to a reduction of the base flood elevation along the river by as much as six feet from what the USACE established in 2005. Engineer A delivered the amount of reduction that his client needed.

Recognize that, at one point in the process of reviewing the work of Engineer A, FEMA's reviewing mapping partner responded to Engineer B's technical objections by writing, “But as [Engineer A] is certifying his work so I do not want to question any further on this.” The FEMA reviewer was prepared to approve the map request in large part because Engineer A put his professional stamp on it. The FEMA reviewer said that a "professional stamp" was largely good enough. That's crazy! Engineer B thought so. As a result, Engineer B kept working and contacted the USACE. He obtained and forwarded an email from USACE to FEMA (and ultimately to Engineer A) confirming how the 2005 model had been calibrated. Yet Engineer B (and locality engineering more broadly) was cut out of final locality approval and discussion with FEMA by his superiors. FEMA approved the Letter of Map Revision request without proper calibration.

In summary, Engineer A modeled. Engineer B objected. FEMA approved the work of Engineer A after Engineer B was cut from the process by his employer, our locality.

Latest alleged facts:

Tolerance between flood model and historical data shall be within .5 ft.
Historical data and Engineer A disagree to the tune of 6 ft.

Engineer B contested Engineer A's conclusion after consult with USACE.
FEMA openly stated that Engineer A's seal trumped Engineer B's informed rejection of A's basis of data.

Engineer A has a monetary interest in one side of a binary outcome of FEMA designation.
If locality had permit fees and property taxes hanging in the balance, then the locality can be considered an outcome-based interested party, and any collusion between A and Locality to press for one outcome vice another is not a good look.

Plenty of smoke. Probably a flame in there somewhere.

AZPete
Ten years passed after the USACE 2005 flood analysis before Engineer A took up their work. So, on our river, there were ten more years of peak flow data available. Using that additional bit of data did reasonably lead to a modification of the river's hydrologic study. We will need to await FEMA's final analysis, but my review suggests that Engineer A could have justified ~1.5 feet of base flood elevation reduction, not 6 feet. His client needed "three feet and a little cushion". That's what his client said in a public meeting. Otherwise, he wouldn't purchase the property in question and begin redevelopment.

Yes, there were financial implications for both localities. A reduced base flood elevation opened new properties to development, property taxes and business taxes. In fact, part of the reason that locality senior staff sidelined Engineer B was due to political pressure. Following a request from Engineer A's client, an elected official wrote to senior locality staff telling them to stop "hamstringing" the process. Basically, get bureaucratic red tape out of the way. Then, locality senior staff discussed internally, saying "does she [the politician] understand that if we approve this remapping request without resolving the technical issues, we'll have a problem?" Nonetheless, just 12 hours later, that same senior staff member drafted the "green light" letter to FEMA, asked Engineer A's client to review it, didn't share the letter with Engineer B, and subsequently sent the letter on to FEMA.

I think your pursuit of Engineer A is going to need to delve into the details of the analysis rather than procedural, unless you have other nuggets of information still to drip-feed. First, whether the parameters used were unreasonable. Even so, that on its own would just show error/negligence. For an ethical infraction, you need to show it was deliberate. Benefiting from the outcome doesn't prove that.

As has been pointed out already, Engineer C also not calibrating initially goes some way to demonstrating the standard of care. In this particular case, FEMA effectively granted a relaxation to Engineer A. Without taking it to court, Engineer A won't end up on the hook for this. I don't think you've said whether Engineer C's initial analysis/parameters was similar to Engineer A's?

As to Engineer A not disclosing their financial interest to FEMA/local authority, not significant IMO. Your latest post says the client was open about needing the defined flood levels to be lowered. Engineer A has to consider their client's interests, so the authorities were already effectively aware of Engineer A's motivation. We go back to my first paragraph at this point.

I still think the authorities are smelling worse from what you've said so far. The engineer doesn't wag the authorities; it's the job of the authorities to reject requests that don't tick the boxes. Having gained approval, the engineer is entitled to believe they've fulfilled the requirements (subject to the first paragraph). Having said that, there could be good reasons not to calibrate to historical. Prime amongst them the possibility that development has taken place that significantly changes the flood risks, and there hasn't been a significant flood since the development to calibrate to. The USACE analysis is now 20 years old, using data that's over 50 years old. If you haven't made formal complaints against FEMA and the local authority and received their responses, you don't have enough of the story IMO.

montbIanc
I appreciate your perspective. Broadly, keep in mind that this whole river flood mapping doesn't affect me directly. I don't live near the river in question. However, the actions of the engineers in question, the localities, and FEMA are all rather fascinating. As I've studied the overall situation, I see problematic elements and players all over the place. I am not suggesting for a second that Engineer A is solely to blame.

Also note that I'm not trying to "drip out" details here. Rather, this is an expansive story with lots of players and many elements. We are all just making relatively brief blog postings here. I've provided more information as individuals on the blog have probed different elements. I'm not trying to be sneaky.

I think the question of "standard of care" is an interesting one. At the outset, I agree. Engineer A exhibited the same standard of care as Engineer C. The lack of use of high water mark data at the outset is not a problem - in my opinion. Engineer A appears not to have been aware of a dataset. He did his analysis and came up with an answer for his client. Much later, Engineer C, working for FEMA, analyzed the same section of river. Engineer C also appears not to have been aware of the high water mark data. They did their analysis and came up with base flood elevations similar to those of Engineer A - in fact a bit more "aggressive" in lowering the base flood elevation. However, after that point, the actions of Engineer A and Engineer C appear to diverge. Both A and C were subsequently informed of the existence of the dataset. Engineer A made no changes to his analysis. Engineer C appears to be redoing his / their calculations. At present, I am not aware of any major developments along the river that would significantly change the river's behavior significantly. Let's wait and see what Engineer C's reanalysis shows.

Once Engineer A was informed of the existence of the data, there are two things that he did / said that I find troubling. First, Engineer B (of the locality) met with Engineer A and talked about the availability of USACE high water mark data. In response, Engineer A told Engineer B that he could not use the data because the actual physical markers placed after the floods in the 1970's were no longer in place. The telephone poles and other objects on which USACE surveyors placed tags were physically gone. The metal disks placed by USACE were gone as well. Yet... the USACE report still existed. In that report, the description of high water mark data point locations is pretty detailed. I used it when I wrote to FEMA earlier this year for my technical appeal of Engineer C's work. I identified where the data points were located along the river and pointed out how those data points at those locations did not agree with the model analysis of Engineer C. FEMA accepted my technical appeal. So, Engineer A said you can't use the USACE data because the physical markers are gone, but this year FEMA appears to say you can.

Second, once FEMA was alerted by Engineer B to the existence of the USACE data, they began to write to Engineer A and ask him to use the data or provide a justification for why the data should be set aside. After a pair of written notifications from FEMA about the existence of the USACE data, Engineer A resubmitted hydraulic analysis unchanged from his original work, without any written explanation for why he was not presenting the USACE data. Engineer B observed this. He noted to colleagues at his locality, "This is the same analysis that we've seen from Engineer A before. No changes." So, I ask, how does that reach the threshold of "standard of care?" Engineer A had been told in writing two times by FEMA - data exists; use it, or provide justification for setting it aside. Yet, Engineer A made no changes and provided no justification to the locality and FEMA for why he was making no changes to his analysis. How does that satisfy the "standard of care" expected in engineering. From my perspective, setting a dataset aside without explanation is substandard work. I see it as willful disregard for a professional process.

Sounds like the real ethical issues lie with the locality senior staff and elected officials. Though this kind of thing with flood maps has been going on for decades or more. No locality wants their city declared a flood zone, even after it repeatedly floods!

I also agree that it sounds like there are more issues with the locality than the engineers work.

You do know that the initial analysis was reasonably sound since another engineer produced the same results. You don't know why the engineer chose to submit the same work again without changes.

You seem to have reasonable info on why it was accepted and the acceptance seems flawed, which isn't the engineers fault.

Do you know when this property was purchased and do you know if the work was changed after the purchase to benefit this property?

Quote (Jim6e)

How does that satisfy the "standard of care" expected in engineering. From my perspective, setting a dataset aside without explanation is substandard work. I see it as willful disregard for a professional process.

That's fine as a general statement and aligns with the FEMA guideline. A proper case study, however, should delve into the fact that the two authorities involved both waived the requirement in this particular case.

The duty of care question is probably also a can of worms. Engineer A clearly has a duty to his client, but it often takes the courts to decide who else. Sometimes that decision is changes on appeal, so it can depend on which judge is the last to touch a case.

A professional engineer should be ethically bound to protect public safety, irrespective of who the client is and how much they're paying.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

Quote (IRstuff)

A professional engineer should be ethically bound to protect public safety, irrespective of who the client is and how much they're paying.

Sure, but as it stands there isn't proof that public safety is compromised. Even with FEMA's revised analysis (yet to be completed), there will just be two competing results that were derived using different methodologies.

montbIanc
I'm not sure that a new answer from FEMA would be just a competing result. FEMA has an established regulatory process for calibrating hydraulic modeling. If high water mark data is available for model calibration, the high water mark data "must" be used. One could set aside such HWM data if there have been major changes to the watershed, but otherwise the data data must be used. As I researched this case study, I read a good bit of US Army Corps documentation as well as FEMA documentation. Both indicate that high water mark data represents the best way to calibrate hydraulic modeling. Then, if such data is not available, other methods are suggested. So, the flood mapping community appears to have established a hierarchy of methodologies.

In terms of your other recent posting, I fully agree that a robust case study needs to look at the missteps of regulatory bodies.

We might be on the same page but I'm not 100% sure.

Quote (Jim6e)

the high water mark data "must" be used

I think you used those quote marks to indicate a direct quote from the FEMA guideline, but they're actually ironic air quotes in this case since FEMA waived the requirement.

Quote (Jim6e)

I fully agree that a robust case study needs to look at the missteps of regulatory bodies

This needs to be done in the consideration of Engineer A's actions, and not from a starting assumption that they were missteps.

montbIanc
Here are the relevant FEMA regulatory standards.

FEMA working standard #59, effective 11/1/2009: “Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses must be calibrated using data from well-documented flood events, if available.”

FEMA program standard #61, effective 11/1/2009: “Engineering analyses must be documented and easily reproducible and must include study methods, reasoning for method selection, input data and parameters, sources of data results, and justifications for major changes in computed flood hazard parameters.”

FEMA working standard #85, effective 7/31/2013: “Deviations from standards must be approved by FEMA, tracked for exception reporting, and documented.”

Critical documentation does not exist for the case discussed throughout this thread. I worked hard to extract all documentation on file with FEMA, and critical parts simply don't appear to be there. The LOMR of Engineer A made a major change to roughness coefficients (Manning's n values). FEMAs reviewing mapping partner should have required written justification / documentation for such a change from Engineer A before approving his proposed changes. The reviewing mapping partners did in fact request such justification three times, but then they approved remapping without documented justification. Additionally, there is no evidence that FEMA ever approved deviation from the standards, i.e. using available high water mark data to calibrate a hydraulic study. During my study of this case, I have not found a request to FEMA from the reviewing mapping partner, asking to deviate from the standards listed above. Over many months I requested documentation from FEMA's engineering library. I submitted additional data requests. I appealed FEMA data delivery responses until I retrieved everything that I think they have. The bottom line is that the standards listed above were not followed on this remapping.

These problems, which occurred in the 2015 - 2016 timeframe, fit with the findings of the Department of Homeland Security inspector general:

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/news/press-releases/2017/0...

https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets...

I do feel that FEMA's reviewing mapping partner and FEMA itself made mistakes, but do their mistakes absolve Engineer A of his professional responsibility to follow published standards intended to guide his engineering work to a quality outcome? The regulations were published. In this country we generally accept the principle that we are all bound by laws even if we don't know those laws. Engineer A should not get a free pass even if he indicates that he did not know of these published FEMA regulations. All these regulations had been on the books for years before he undertook his analysis. The regulators appear to have erred. Does Engineer A then get a free pass?

Jim6e, you are exasperating. Be honest, what is your real beef with Engineer A? You have said that it isn't personal, but your behavior throughout this thread strongly suggests that it is. At this point, you are just throwing any idea that comes to your mind at the wall to see if it sticks. Within your posts, you have pursued multiple incoherent, off-base theories to find fault with Engineer A. You have found very little to no agreement with any of your theories from other posters in this thread , and so, each time you eventually move on to fervently pursuing a yet another theory of wrongdoing by Engineer A.

Your starting theory, that Engineer A was guilty of an ethics violation based on the premise that a third party government entity should be considered as Engineer A's client, was utterly ridiculous and asinine on it's face.

Your current argument, that Engineer A has failed in his professional duties and failed to meet the standard of care because he may or may not have incorrectly navigated a bureaucratic black hole of procedural government regulations that the actual government regulator doesn't even seem capable of navigating, also seems misguided, and even if it were the case, it would not be an ethics violation.

gte447f
In the Virginia Administrative Code, there is the following subsection:

Competency for Assignments
"The professional shall adhere to the minimum standards and requirements pertaining to the practice of his own profession, as well as other professions if incidental work is performed."

FEMA has published regulatory standards which Engineer A failed to follow. Beyond FEMA's standards, the science and engineering fields more generally do not support "cherry picking" of data. In science and engineering, we do not get to set aside data without justification. That is a broad, minimum standard of conduct in our fields. The available data set from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1974) was deemed useful and valid by FEMA and the USACE in 2005, by Engineer B of the locality in 2015, and again by FEMA in 2024. On this very river system, those three professional engineers / sets of engineers deemed the data set to be valid. Engineer A set that data set aside without documented justification in 2014 - 2016.

Let's examine the idea that negligence by the government regulator absolves Engineer A of any responsibility to follow the Virginia Administrative Code. (Disclaimer: I provide the following two examples not to suggest in any way that these two examples occurred in this case. I do not believe that they did. Rather, I provide these two examples as extremes intended to illustrate the flaw in your logic.) Example 1: What if the government regulator offered to approve Engineer A's application if Engineer A would pay a significant financial bribe to the regulator, e.g., $10,000? Under such circumstances, would Engineer A be absolved of his duty to adhere to the Virginia Administrative Code? Example 2: What if the government regulator offered to approve Engineer A's application in exchange for sexual favors? Under such circumstances, would Engineer A be absolved of his duty to adhere to the Virginia Administrative Code?

If an engineer is aware that regulatory standards and procedures are not being followed, that engineer has a responsibility to stop moving forward on a project. Ignorance of published standards is no excuse. Regulations and standards are developed via thoughtful processes, reviewed by many and accepted by the field. Individual engineers do not have the latitude to set aside those standards, even when other engineers fail to follow the published standards. Negligence by one does not make negligence by another acceptable.

Write an article and have it published in the NSPE journal as a live case study of ethical cloudiness. If published, forward the copy to the locality in question and place it before the homeowners in the "flood plain". Then walk away, knowing the lawyers will take care of what the engineers and bureaucrats could not.

As a professional yourself, you should inform the engineer that you're reviewing their work. Did you?

Get your fire stake pit ready, only way you'll be happy is by successfully concluding your witch hunt.

LionelHutz
Yes. About nine months ago, I reached out to Engineer A twice by email over a week to ten days. I indicated why I was writing and asked to speak. I received no reply. I then called the office of Engineer A. I spoke to his office assistant and explained who I was and why I was calling. She went off the line for a moment and then came back to say that Engineer A could not come to the phone right now. She had my name and number as well as my reason for calling. I never heard back from Engineer A.

I wouldn't describe this as a witch hunt. I see problems all up and down the line - FEMA, FEMA's reviewing mapping partners, localities, and local engineers. I just think professionals should act professionally. In this case, it looks like multiple professionals have been unprofessional, to the detriment of innocent parties in my community. Is it actually wrong to draw attention to that and to expect accountability? As a professional engineer, I thought my paramount duty was to look out for the health, safety and welfare of the public.

Quote (Jim6e)

Engineer A said you can't use the USACE data because the physical markers are gone

Assuming this reason is not valid, Engineer A nonetheless provided a reason during the approval/review process. This moves the needle from ethics to technical error IMO, with the onus on you to prove nefarious intent if you want an ethics violation to stick.

Quote (Jim6e)

Rather, I provide these two examples as extremes intended to illustrate the flaw in your logic.) Example 1: What if the government regulator offered to approve Engineer A's application if Engineer A would pay a significant financial bribe to the regulator, e.g., $10,000? Under such circumstances, would Engineer A be absolved of his duty to adhere to the Virginia Administrative Code? Example 2: What if the government regulator offered to approve Engineer A's application in exchange for sexual favors? Under such circumstances, would Engineer A be absolved of his duty to adhere to the Virginia Administrative Code?

Despite knowing these were in no way relevant, you still chose to post them. This really casts a shadow on your private investigation, and ability to present this case study properly to the ethics class.

Those stupid what if scenarios were the direct reason for my second second comment last time. Jim6e has decided the engineer is guilty. I'd put money on the case being presented in an ethics class, assuming this is actually true, in such a way that the class also comes to the same decision.