Step 3: Temporal Dynamics Pass (Facts)

Section Content:

Facts:
Engineer K, a licensed professional engineer, is hired by the City to design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area that has experienced increasingly severe flooding.
The City has policies in place to develop new infrastructure projects with resiliency due to climate change in mind.
The project’s goal is to create a resilient infrastructure that balances immediate protection needs with long-term sustainability.
During the initial design phase, Engineer K identifies two potential approaches, both of which could be successfully designed and implemented:Traditional Approach: Build a concrete floodwall system to provide immediate protection at a relatively low cost.
While effective in the short term, the floodwall system has a high carbon footprint, is prone to deterioration, and may require significant repairs or upgrades within 15 years.
Further, the system does not provide for expandability should future flooding risk expand or increase and would require complete demolition and rebuilding if the capacity proved insufficient in the future.
Sustainable Approach: Develop a green infrastructure system incorporating wetland restoration and other biodynamic controls.
This approach would mitigate flooding while enhancing local biodiversity and reducing carbon emissions.
Further, the natural aspects of this approach could readily be expanded if additional capacity is necessary should future flooding risk expand or increase.
However, the initial cost is significantly higher than the traditional approach and the system requires several years to fully mature before offering optimal protection.
As part of the project development process, the City directed Engineer K to hold stakeholder meetings to gather feedback on the project.
During stakeholder meetings, some commentors expressed a preference for the Traditional Approach due to its lower upfront cost and faster implementation timeline.
However, other community and environmental organizations advocated for the Sustainable Approach, citing its long-term environmental and social benefits.
Engineer K personally believes the Sustainable Approach aligns better with both City policies and the engineer’s professional obligation to promote sustainability and resilience, but recognizes competing priorities of cost, urgency, and long-term impact.
While working on the report and gathering necessary information, Engineer K discovers that the Traditional Approach could disproportionately impact a nearby underserved community by diverting floodwaters to their neighborhood under low-probability but high-volume conditions—particularly if the design capacity of the Traditional Approach is breached.
Engineer K presents all available information about both the Traditional Approach and the Sustainable Approach, including the risks and benefits of each approach to the City’s leadership during a City Council meeting.
The City’s leadership decides not to address the identified floodwater issue with the Traditional Approach, ultimately concluding that any action to mitigate the impact on this community would delay the project further and reinforcing the low probability of such conditions occurring.
The City approves the Traditional Approach and Engineer K proceeds to work on its implementation.