Facts: Engineer A is a professional engineer who serves as the superintendent and chief engineer for the Metropolitan Water Commission (MWC). In order to reduce municipal expenditures and lower water rates, the MWC has been considering changing its water supply source from purchasing water from remote reservoirs from another regional authority to using the local river as the MWC's source. Engineer B, a consulting engineer retained by the MWC charged with evaluating water treatment needs for the change in water source, provided a report to Engineer A recommending extensive capital investments and a three-year timeline for further evaluation of water quality, design, and construction of improvements. The improvements are needed prior to the change in water source to ensure that sufficient corrosion control is provided so that old service pipes in the MWC service area don't leach lead at levels in excess of drinking water standards. Both Engineer A and Engineer B met with the MWC at a meeting sparsely attended by the public and recommended that the change in water source be substantially delayed until improvements could be completed. Despite those recommendations, the MWC voted to proceed simultaneously with the accelerated evaluation and design of needed water treatment improvements and the change in water source. Question(s): Question 6. What are the ethical obligations of Engineer A and Engineer B in this circumstance? (15 points) Question 7. What should Engineer A and Engineer B do? (10 points) Question 8. Please identifying 2-4 references from the NSPE code of ethics for engineers. Please explain why you choose these references. (25 points) Please note that you are not supposed to select the correct ethical references. You should select appropriate ones and you have to provide good discussion based on your selections