Ye Olde Water Main(Case 1033)The mission of the National.docx

Ye Olde Water Main
(Case 1033)
The mission of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics
(NIEE) is to promote ethics in engineering practice and
education. One component of NIEE is the Applied Ethics in
Professional Practice (AEPP) program, providing free
engineering ethics cases for educational purposes. The
following case may be reprinted if it is provided free of charge
to the engineer or student. Written permission is required if the
case is reprinted for resale. For more cases and other NIEE
Products & Services, contact the National Institute for
Engineering Ethics, Texas Tech University, www.niee.org..
(All reprints must contain these statements)
The Case:
Shadyvale, a picturesque town in upstate New England, is
having water problems. Three years ago an engineering
consultant issued a report which stated, among other things, that
the existing water main in Shadyvale was generally in good
condition but was extremely old. Further, the water main no
longer is large enough for all of the properties served. Since
that time, the Town Selectmen have been trying to secure the
funds needed to replace the old main with a new main of larger
diameter, but they still cannot afford to do so.
However, the State Department of Transportation (DOT) is
planning a highway reconstruction project in Shadyvale.
Warren, a senior planning and programming engineer, is the
senior DOT engineer responsible for this project. Although he
now lives in the Capitol City, Warren was born and raised in a
small village not far from Shadyvale, next door to his boyhood

friend, Earnest “Red” Anderson. With a twinge of nostalgia and
fond memories of a more peaceful time, Warren confidently
delegates the project to one of his subordinates, Dianne, a
young engineer intern about to sit for the PE exam.
Dianne is well liked, highly competent, and by all indications,
will go far in the Department. As per standard practice, Dianne
initiates the design layout for the Shadyvale project to avoid
conflicts with the existing utilities, including the old water
main. She understands that State DOT policy unambiguously
requires that only unavoidable utility conflicts will be paid for
as part of highway projects and that other utility work is to be
considered as a betterment that must be paid for by the local
municipality. This is quite fresh on her mind, since due to a
downturn in the State’s economy, several layoffs have occurred
in the State government, and recent memos have repeatedly
emphasized fiscal belt-tightening.
With the design at about 30 percent completion, Dianne submits
a set of drawings to Warren for his review and comment. She
also recommends a site visit to observe the route, tie down
several details, and resolve various design issues. On the
appointed morning, Warren and Dianne secure a State vehicle
and make the very pleasant drive to Shadyvale. The stress of
the city fades with each mile as they drive through some of the
most picturesque scenery in the State.
“I’ll definitely have to bring the wife back in September to
enjoy the foliage,” muses Warren to himself as they drive into
town. Shops, restaurants, and even the local garage still have
that old-town feel. As expected, it is a wonderful day in the
field, and Dianne busily gathers the information she needs to
take the drawings to the next level. In the meantime, Warren
takes the opportunity to explore the town. To his pleasant
surprise, he learns that his friend, Red Anderson, still lives in
Shadyvale, and in fact is the senior Town Selectman.

Upon learning of Warren’s being in Shadyvale, Red invites
Warren and Dianne to lunch at one of the local cafes. In
addition to catching up on old times, Red recounts Shadyvale’s
water main problem and how the town just sees no way to get
together the kind of money needed for such a project. Dianne is
well aware of the location of this water main – she knows
Warren is too – she made a conscious decision to design around
it. But neither of them says anything, not wanting to spoil such
a friendly visit. After a good meal, good conversation, and
plans for Warren and Red to get together in the near future,
Warren and Dianne depart from Shadyvale.
On the way back to Department headquarters, Dianne comments
to Warren about how, in view of their conversation with Red,
she feels disappointed that she must align the new closed
drainage system for this project on the opposite side of the road
from the old water main. The facts are, were the proposed
drainage system to impact the existing water main, it could be
dealt with simply as an added share to the Engineer's Estimate
for the Town's cost, and Shadyvale would only be responsible
for the difference in price between the size of the now-impacted
existing water main and the proposed larger size (about
$25,000), rather than for all of the water main work (over
$350,000). “It’s just too bad,” she sighed.
Warren had been silent, listening to Dianne’s comments and line
of reasoning. After she finished her thought, just as they were
pulling into DOT headquarters, Warren looked directly at
Dianne and stated in an odd sort of way, “Yes, the citizens of
Shadyvale are really fine people, and they deserve the best the
State DOT can offer. I want you to do a really thorough job on
the layout, and I’ll back you 100 percent.” Then, as they were
getting out of the car, Warren added, “By the way, Dianne, you
had mentioned that you were going to send me a reference form
for your PE license. Please get that to me and I’ll complete it

right away.”
It is now the next morning. Dianne is at her desk, looking at
the Shadyvale drawings. It seems obvious to her based on
Warren’s clandestine remark that he wants her to change the
design so that Shadyvale’s old water main is impacted, thus
requiring the State DOT to bear most of the cost of replacing it.
This could be justified easily enough, and no subsequent
reviewer would question the issue if Warren signs off on this as
he says he will. After all, it is not like Warren is asking her to
embezzle funds for personal use or anything. But Dianne knows
this action is not consistent with DOT policy. A voice inside
screams, “What about your ethics?” Immediately another voice
replies, “What about your PE license recommendation from
Warren?” Yet another pipes up, “What about the deserving
citizens of Shadyvale?” And on it goes.
How should Dianne proceed with this matter?
Alternate Approaches and Survey Results for “Ye Olde Water
Main” (Case 1033)
1. Go along to get along, compliantly. Dianne should do what
Warren wants – not rock the boat. She is getting her marching
orders from Warren, she is under his direct supervision, and she
should embrace this opportunity to learn from him how to
handle these types of situations.
Percentage of votes agreeing: 2%
2. Go along to get along, cautiously. Dianne should follow
Warren’s apparent hint and design the reconstruction project so
that the water line is replaced. If she feels that Warren cannot
be trusted, she should keep records of conversations, meetings
and review comments by him.
3. Share the wealth, generously. Adding the water main to the

highway project is a "win-win" for everyone involved. The
increase in the State project costs are negligible while building
considerable community good will. Shadyvale will obtain
plenty of clean water at an affordable cost, Warren will fulfill
his sense of hometown obligation, and Dianne will receive the
favorable PE recommendation she seeks. It is after all the
responsibility of a professional engineer to look beyond polices
and seek the best solution to every problem.
4. Take refuge in ambiguity, innocently. Dianne should proceed
to develop the plans as per her understanding of DOT policy,
pretending to have not picked up on Warren’s subtle “hint” to
move the water line. In her transmittal memo to Warren,
Dianne should take pains to point out how she has complied
with his request to be very thorough in her design work on this
project. This puts the issue squarely in Warren’s court.
5. Straddle the fence, technically. Dianne is not a decision
maker, but she does have the opportunity to prepare and present
two plans. One plan should follow the letter of the DOT
directive and the second should follow a "cost-share" approach
to include replacement of the water main. Since Warren seems
very interested in influencing this project, offer him the
opportunity to recommend the project to be sent forward.
6. Straddle the fence, politically. Don’t let policy stand in the
way of common sense. Since Shadyvale will benefit if the
design is prepared in a certain way, there may be someone from
the Selectmen who has influence in certain circles and could
convince someone on the DOT board to grant a variance to the
policy in this case. Maybe the Selectmen could ante up funds
that would increase the town’s share of the water line
replacement cost which would justify the policy variance.

Dianne should consult with Warren on this approach to
negotiate a win-win solution and efficient expenditure of public
funds.
7. Face the facts, squarely. Dianne should consult with Warren
to clarify his intentions. His statement, made as they were
getting out of the car, could be interpreted to mean either design
in accordance with DOT regulations and policy, or prepare the
design to cause replacement of the old water main. If he is
indeed asking her to ignore DOT policy, Dianne should talk
with Warren about her concerns regarding moving the alignment
and explain the reasons that this is a bad idea and try to talk
him out of doing this.
Percentage of votes agreeing: 26
8. Agree to disagree, cordially. Dianne should ask to be
removed from the project – she should make it clear to Warren
that she would not be able in good conscience to do what he has
asked, and point out that it is within Warren’s prerogative to
engineer the alignment change himself, or direct someone else
to make the alignment change.
9. Adhere to policy, strictly. Dianne has clear guidance from
the DOT to minimize all costs to the State. This guidance is
fair, causes no real harm to the people of Shadyvale, and does
not violate the ASCE Code of Ethics. There is no reason, other
than her concern about possibly losing a favorable PE
recommendation, for Dianne to not follow the DOT directive.
10. Blow the whistle, loudly. Dianne should flatly refuse to
change the alignment – Warren is asking her to do something
unethical and something that will cost the DOT more than it
should. She should simply say she cannot do this and put the

alignment in the best location. Further, she should go over
Warren’s head to his boss and point out that he is encouraging
her to violate DOT policy.
Forum Comments from Respondents
1. Warren's comments could be taken either way. If Warren
wants a violation of DOT policy, Dianne could take option 5
and force Warren to take responsibility for the change in
alignment. If he does so, Diane can go along with this,
recognizing that Warren is the senior engineer and has the
ultimate responsibility for the design. Or, Dianne could blow
the whistle. If she blows the whistle she could do it loudly and
publicly, or she could do it quietly by leaking a copy of the
decision memo to someone more senior than Warren or outside
the DOT. Either way, Dianne should look into getting a
different person for her reference for her PE license.
2. Dianne is aware that, given the State’s tight financial
situation, the decision to alter the plans to please Warren could
result in someone else in the DOT getting laid off. There are
plenty of other reasons to adhere to DOT policy, but I feel that
this is the major one.
3. Instead of keeping this a big secret, Dianne should ask
Warren to discuss this situation openly with DOT and
Shadyvale to see if something can be worked out. Dianne
should take a proactive approach to the problem, without trying
to draw attention to certain individuals. If the DOT is willing
to work with Shadyvale, great. If the situation is treated as a
secret then it is dishonest.
4. I would not mind if my gas tax helped a few people get some
needed clean water.
5. In this case, I believe Dianne should ask Warren to clarify his
intentions. By doing what he wants, she will save her PE

recommendation. This is against policy, but sometimes you
have to stray from what is mandated. No rule or law is
absolute; there are and will always be exceptions and under
varying circumstances what is “right” may not agree with
regulations. As for the money, the residents of Shadyvale are
going to pay about the same amount either directly or indirectly.
The funds necessary for carrying out such projects come from
the people and it will all even out in the end.
6. Option 3 is preferred because everyone is winning here.
Shadyvale will benefit from the project and the DOT will not
lose much. The most important thing is that the project will be
done.
7. It seems that if Warren really wants Dianne to bend the rules
for the project he should be willing to do the same. She gives
him two plans, one of them is what he wants, the other one is
more reasonable. Leave it up to Warren whether or not coffee
with an old friend justifies $350,000 worth of added costs for a
starved state budget. If he wants to bend the rules, Dianne can
do her job but leave the responsibility of the choice where it
belongs, with Warren.
8. Dianne should face the facts squarely, analyze the pro's and
con's of the alignment options and let Warren decide. Warren is
the responsible engineer and he owes Dianne clear guidance.
Dianne owes Warren her best summation of the issues and
impacts of the two alignment options. Written DOT policies
and project policies may differ on the finer points and there are
several possible reasons to replace the water main now; for
instance, possible disruption of the water main during
construction, protection of the investment in new pavement by
replacing utilities now, ease of permitting, etc. There is the
potential for joint benefit with cost sharing to be negotiated.
9. I feel that Option 6 is the best course of action. If I had to be

one of the people involved in this problem, I would want to be
able to reach an agreement in such a way as to benefit everyone.
For the same reason, if this were in the newspapers it would
make everyone look like they did their part and the project was
a joint effort.
10. Ethics should not be pushed aside just to save money, even
if it is to help out a town or other organization. There is always
another solution to help people out.
11. Dianne should talk with Warren and tell him her concerns.
If the project cannot be done in accordance with DOT policy
then Dianne should request to be removed from the project.
Comments from Board of Review Members
1.
Options for Dianne:
Option One:
Dianne asks Warren for an opportunity to discuss comments of
the preceding day. Warren says, “Sure. What’s on your mind?”
Dianne says, “Could we step into your office?”
Warren answers, “Sure.”
Dianne clears her throat and says, with some hesitancy, “What
is your expectation of what a “really thorough job” ought to
yield for our project layout, especially regarding the routing of
the closed-pipe drainage system? You’ve had a lot more
experience than I in how to deal with the type of issues we
talked about, yesterday. Could you provide me provide me some
written notes and mark up the drawings of the 30% design I
submitted last week? That would be really helpful and could
save me from overrunning my budgeted design hours.”

Warren says, “No problem. I’ll get them to you this afternoon.”
Later that day, after Dianne had finished her brown-bag lunch
and returned to her windowless office from the “staff” picnic
table, just outside her office there sat the rolled-up drawings
and her “Preliminary Design” brief. There was a big yellow
Post-It Note saying, “Looks great! Proceed with 50% Design for
review on September 15th. W” The note bore no date.
On a standard Department Intra-Office Memorandum form,
Dianne wrote out, “Warren, In accordance with the instructions
you returned, today, with the “30% Design” package, I will
proceed with the 50% Design drawings and specifications for
your review on September 15th.” She dated and signed the
memo. She stuck Warren’s yellow note on her memo and
photocopied it. Then after removing the note, she put her memo
in the mail cart. She then made photocopies of Warren’s note
stuck on the cover sheets of her Preliminary Design report and
drawings and filed the copies in the lockable center drawer of
her desk.
About 3:30 PM, she peddled her 10-speed home, warned up
some leftovers, wrote out a check for the third payment of her
college tuition loan, and leafed through her Advanced Highway
Design text while pondering the next forty years of her life.
Option Two:
Dianne logs onto Monster.com
2.
Dianne should study all the reasonable options of designing the
project – including cost estimates and other related factors. Her
decision should be based on the facts she develops. She should
prepare a summary report of her investigations, conclusions and

recommendations, and she should review the report with
Warren. Assuming she concludes that the drainage system
should be on the opposite side from the water mains, she should
so advise Warren and explain how she reached her conclusion.
Warren has several options: (1) agree with Dianne’s conclusions
and recommendations, (2) show deficiencies in her approach, or
(3) instruct her to change her conclusions and recommendations.
On the assumption that Warren will find deficiencies in her
approach, if Dianne agrees with Warren’s concerns about
deficiencies and this changes the conclusion, she should make
the change to her design. If she does not agree with Warren,
then she should not make the change in her conclusions and
recommendations. If Warren instructs her to change her
recommendation, she should decline and offer the let Warren
submit the project over his signature. Dianne should not change
her conclusions and recommendations that are not supported by
the facts she develops. She has the ethical responsibility to
base her recommendations on her engineering studies even if it
may jeopardize her receiving a favorable recommendation for
the P.E. license. Warren, hopefully, will do the ethical thing
and provide an appropriate reference for the license.
Code of Ethics1
Fundamental Principles2
Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity
of the
engineering profession by:
1. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of

human welfare
and the environment;
2. being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the
public, their
employers and clients;
3. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the
engineering
profession; and
4. supporting the professional and technical societies of their
disciplines.
Fundamental Canons
1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare
of the
public and shall strive to comply with the principles of
sustainable
development3 in the performance of their professional duties.
2. Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their
competence.
3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective
and
truthful manner.
4. Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer
or client
as faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of
interest.
5. Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the
merit of their

services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
6. Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and
enhance the
honor, integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and
shall act
with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.
7. Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout
their careers, and shall provide opportunities for the
professional
development of those engineers under their supervision.
Guidelines to Practice Under the Fundamental Canons of Ethics
CANON 1.
Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of
the public
and shall strive to comply with the principles of sustainable
development in
the performance of their professional duties.
a. Engineers shall recognize that the lives, safety, health and
welfare of
the general public are dependent upon engineering judgments,
decisions and practices incorporated into structures, machines,
products, processes and devices.
b. Engineers shall approve or seal only those design documents,

reviewed or prepared by them, which are determined to be safe
for
public health and welfare in conformity with accepted
engineering
standards.
c. Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under
circumstances where the safety, health and welfare of the public
are
endangered, or the principles of sustainable development
ignored,
shall inform their clients or employers of the possible
consequences.
d. Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that
another
person or firm may be in violation of any of the provisions of
Canon 1
shall present such information to the proper authority in writing
and
shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such
further
information or assistance as may be required.
e. Engineers should seek opportunities to be of constructive
service in
civic affairs and work for the advancement of the safety, health
and
well-being of their communities, and the protection of the
environment
through the practice of sustainable development.
f. Engineers should be committed to improving the environment
by
adherence to the principles of sustainable development so as to
enhance the quality of life of the general public.

CANON 2.
Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their
competence.
a. Engineers shall undertake to perform engineering assignments
only
when qualified by education or experience in the technical field
of
engineering involved.
b. Engineers may accept an assignment requiring education or
experience outside of their own fields of competence, provided
their
services are restricted to those phases of the project in which
they are
qualified. All other phases of such project shall be performed by
qualified associates, consultants, or employees.
c. Engineers shall not affix their signatures or seals to any
engineering
plan or document dealing with subject matter in which they lack
competence by virtue of education or experience or to any such
plan
or document not reviewed or prepared under their supervisory
control.
CANON 3.
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and
truthful
manner.

a. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of
engineering and sustainable development, and shall not
participate in
the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements
regarding engineering.
b. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional
reports,
statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and
pertinent
information in such reports, statements, or testimony.
c. Engineers, when serving as expert witnesses, shall express an
engineering opinion only when it is founded upon adequate
knowledge
of the facts, upon a background of technical competence, and
upon
honest conviction.
d. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments
on
engineering matters which are inspired or paid for by interested
parties, unless they indicate on whose behalf the statements are
made.
e. Engineers shall be dignified and modest in explaining their
work and
merit, and will avoid any act tending to promote their own
interests at
the expense of the integrity, honor and dignity of the
profession.
CANON 4.
Engineers shall act in professional matters for each employer or

client as
faithful agents or trustees, and shall avoid conflicts of interest.
a. Engineers shall avoid all known or potential conflicts of
interest with
their employers or clients and shall promptly inform their
employers or
clients of any business association, interests, or circumstances
which
could influence their judgment or the quality of their services.
b. Engineers shall not accept compensation from more than one
party for
services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the
same
project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed to and
agreed to,
by all interested parties.
c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept gratuities, directly or
indirectly,
from contractors, their agents, or other parties dealing with
their
clients or employers in connection with work for which they are
responsible.
d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or
employees of a
governmental body or department shall not participate in
considerations or actions with respect to services solicited or
provided
by them or their organization in private or public engineering
practice.

e. Engineers shall advise their employers or clients when, as a
result of
their studies, they believe a project will not be successful.
f. Engineers shall not use confidential information coming to
them in the
course of their assignments as a means of making personal
profit if
such action is adverse to the interests of their clients, employers
or
the public.
g. Engineers shall not accept professional employment outside
of their
regular work or interest without the knowledge of their
employers.
CANON 5.
Engineers shall build their professional reputation on the merit
of their
services and shall not compete unfairly with others.
a. Engineers shall not give, solicit or receive either directly or
indirectly,
any political contribution, gratuity, or unlawful consideration in
order
to secure work, exclusive of securing salaried positions through
employment agencies.
b. Engineers should negotiate contracts for professional services
fairly
and on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications
for
the type of professional service required.

c. Engineers may request, propose or accept professional
commissions
on a contingent basis only under circumstances in which their
professional judgments would not be compromised.
d. Engineers shall not falsify or permit misrepresentation of
their
academic or professional qualifications or experience.
e. Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to
those to
whom credit is due, and shall recognize the proprietary interests
of
others. Whenever possible, they shall name the person or
persons who
may be responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other
accomplishments.
f. Engineers may advertise professional services in a way that
does not
contain misleading language or is in any other manner
derogatory to
the dignity of the profession. Examples of permissible
advertising are
as follows:
o Professional cards in recognized, dignified publications, and
listings in rosters or directories published by responsible
organizations, provided that the cards or listings are consistent
in size and content and are in a section of the publication
regularly devoted to such professional cards.
o Brochures which factually describe experience, facilities,
personnel and capacity to render service, providing they are not

misleading with respect to the engineer's participation in
projects
described.
o Display advertising in recognized dignified business and
professional publications, providing it is factual and is not
misleading with respect to the engineer's extent of participation
in projects described.
o A statement of the engineers' names or the name of the firm
and
statement of the type of service posted on projects for which
they render services.
o Preparation or authorization of descriptive articles for the lay
or
technical press, which are factual and dignified. Such articles
shall not imply anything more than direct participation in the
project described.
o Permission by engineers for their names to be used in
commercial advertisements, such as may be published by
contractors, material suppliers, etc., only by means of a modest,
dignified notation acknowledging the engineers' participation in
the project described. Such permission shall not include public
endorsement of proprietary products.
g. Engineers shall not maliciously or falsely, directly or
indirectly, injure
the professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment
of
another engineer or indiscriminately criticize another's work.
h. Engineers shall not use equipment, supplies, laboratory or
office
facilities of their employers to carry on outside private practice

without
the consent of their employers.
CANON 6.
Engineers shall act in such a manner as to uphold and enhance
the honor,
integrity, and dignity of the engineering profession and shall act
with zero-
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption.
a. Engineers shall not knowingly engage in business or
professional
practices of a fraudulent, dishonest or unethical nature.
b. Engineers shall be scrupulously honest in their control and
spending of
monies, and promote effective use of resources through open,
honest
and impartial service with fidelity to the public, employers,
associates
and clients.
c. Engineers shall act with zero-tolerance for bribery, fraud, and
corruption in all engineering or construction activities in which
they are
engaged.
d. Engineers should be especially vigilant to maintain
appropriate ethical
behavior where payments of gratuities or bribes are

institutionalized
practices.
e. Engineers should strive for transparency in the procurement
and
execution of projects. Transparency includes disclosure of
names,
addresses, purposes, and fees or commissions paid for all agents
facilitating projects.
f. Engineers should encourage the use of certifications
specifying zero-
tolerance for bribery, fraud, and corruption in all contracts.
CANON 7.
Engineers shall continue their professional development
throughout their
careers, and shall provide opportunities for the professional
development of
those engineers under their supervision.
a. Engineers should keep current in their specialty fields by
engaging in
professional practice, participating in continuing education
courses,
reading in the technical literature, and attending professional
meetings
and seminars.
b. Engineers should encourage their engineering employees to
become
registered at the earliest possible date.
c. Engineers should encourage engineering employees to attend
and
present papers at professional and technical society meetings.

d. Engineers shall uphold the principle of mutually satisfying
relationships
between employers and employees with respect to terms of
employment including professional grade descriptions, salary
ranges,
and fringe benefits.
1 The Society’s Code of Ethics was adopted on September 2,
1914 and was most recently
amended on July 23, 2006. Pursuant to the Society’s Bylaws, it
is the duty of every Society
member to report promptly to the Committee on Professional
Conduct any observed
violation of the Code of Ethics.
2 In April 1975, the ASCE Board of Direction adopted the
fundamental principles of the Code
of Ethics of Engineers as accepted by the Accreditation Board
for Engineering and
Technology, Inc. (ABET).
3 In October 2009, the ASCE Board of Direction adopted the
following definition of
Sustainable Development: “Sustainable Development is the
process of applying natural,
human, and economic resources to enhance the safety, welfare,
and quality of life for all of
the society while maintaining the availability of the remaining
natural resources.”

Ye Olde Water Main(Case 1033)The mission of the National.docx

Ye Olde Water Main(Case 1033)The mission of the National.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from jeffevans62972

More from jeffevans62972 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ye Olde Water Main(Case 1033)The mission of the National.docx