Our military has rules and regulations for virtually everything; however, it also has rules for waiving the rules. Requests for waiver must be in writing ("There's a form for that") and must be approved by a specified authority. My experience (Corps of Engineers) and friends (Army, Air Force, and Navy) has been that sensible reasons get waivers approved. Occasionally, someone who enjoys being hardnosed or fears being criticized refuses all waivers but most approving officials understand the need and appreciate the flexibility.
It seems something like that ought to work in civil infrastructure as well. For example, requiring curbs and gutters increases runoff volume and rates, yet some cities require them. Grassy swale waivers reduce the flooding threat, if allowed.
Bill
------------------------------
William McAnally Ph.D., P.E., BC.CE, BC.NE, F.ASCE
ENGINEER
Columbus MS
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 05-24-2026 02:30 PM
From: Heidi Wallace
Subject: Rules: "set in stone" or "meant to be broken"?
I've been thinking recently about jurisdictional rules and how they are applied.
On one end of the spectrum you have the mindset that the rules are the rules, and there is no room for variances or exceptions, regardless of if the rule's author had accounted for this specific circumstance.
On the other end, you have the mindset that rules are just suggestions, and the right influence can get you around any requirement.
How can jurisdictional authorities strike a healthy balance that serves their citizens and protects the environment well?
-------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Heidi C. Wallace, P.E., M.ASCE
Tulsa, OK
------------------------------