Building near river bank; stop construction?

The case

During a quality control visit, I find a building, 20% complete, on a river bank where flooding is likely to damage it. The quality of the work is as per specification. My task is limited to quality control. The site survey was done by my friend with the consent of the local people.

Issues

• Public safety: a flood can destroy the building and may kill or injure its users. The engineer's paramount duty includes public safety and the welfare of the community, even beyond the narrow job scope.
• Scope of work versus responsibility: a quality engineer is not responsible for site selection. But knowing of a serious hazard and keeping silent would be negligent and would break the Nepal Engineering Council code of conduct (public safety, honesty, and notifying the proper authority if safety is endangered).
• Waste of public money: continuing to invest in a building that is likely to be washed away wastes resources.
• Conflict of interest: the survey was done by my friend. I must not defend his work out of friendship; it needs an independent check.
• Local consent: the consent of the people is important, but it is not technical proof of safety. They may not understand the flood risk, and their non-expert consent does not remove the engineer's duty. Building by-laws, river-bank setback rules and water resources regulations may also prohibit building in the flood zone.
• Sunk cost: the 20% already spent is small compared with the loss if the finished building is destroyed.

Options

1. Continue because my job is only quality control: this ignores the hazard.
2. Stop the work myself: I have no authority to do so, and it may harm working relationships.
3. Report the concern and recommend suspension until the risk is assessed, then continue, modify or relocate.

Recommendation

I recommend option 3.

1. Inform the client, my employer and the local government in writing, with photos, high flood level information from the local people, and river data.
2. Recommend suspending further construction until an independent site assessment (hydrology and flood level, bank erosion and a geotechnical study) is made by someone other than my friend.
3. Share the findings with the community in simple language so that their consent is informed.
4. Act on the study: if the risk is high, relocate to a safe site and reuse materials where possible; if it is moderate, redesign with a raised plinth, a deeper foundation and bank protection works such as gabion walls or an embankment, allowing for the extra cost.
5. Continue quality control with the same strictness whichever decision is made, and keep a record of my advice.

The construction should not continue as it is. Since 80% of the cost is still to be spent and lives may be at risk, it is better to stop and reassess now.