In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the investigation to assess the failure of the levees protecting New Orleans was called into question. Some believed there to be severe conflict of interest due to the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers – the agency that built and maintained the levees – paid the American Society of Civil Engineers $2 million to conduct the investigation. Could the American Society of Civil Engineers conduct a thorough and reputable investigation and report truthfully on the entirety of any flaws in the construction of the levees even though they were bankrolled by the same organization they would be potentially lambasting? This question lies at the heart of this ethical case study.

Those who question the Army Corps of Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers integrity in the investigation have justifiable concerns. Can an organization be expected to thoroughly and honestly report on any malfeasance present in the organization that is paying them to conduct the investigation? What kind of oversight did the Army Corps of Engineers have in the investigation? How were they involved in the investigation? Answers to these questions would help to elucidate whether or not there was a legitimate conflict of interest. And even if both the Army Corps of Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers were impeccably thorough and truthful in their investigation, the mere fact that there are legitimate concerns regarding a conflict of interest undermines their investigation and findings. The solution, then, must be to utilize a different model for conducting investigations. The problem is not exclusively whether or not there was any malfeasance in the investigation due to the conflict of interest, but rather that there exists a valid claim to a conflict of interest.

The conflict of interest that exists between these two organizations can be solved in several different ways by establishing different relations between the Army Corps of Engineers and the American Society of Civil Engineers. One possible solution would be to have multiple, concurrent investigations; these investigations could still be funded by the Army Corps of Engineers. These investigations would operate independently from one another and their findings would be compared as a means of validation. Another possible solution would be to have the federal government fine the Army Corps of Engineers and then the government could manage the selection of an outside organization to conduct the investigation. By doing this, there is no direct connection between the organization that is being investigated and the organization that is doing the investigating.