Decisions for evaluating public project investment most frequently use benefit-cost analysis. The procedure rests on the assumption that an efficient alternative should be selected that maximizes the net aggregate benefits to society as a whole. However, this selection results in projects that invariably provide different levels of benefits to members of a community, thus contravening the principles of equity or distributive justice. Six strategies for dealing with the problem of distributive justice are explored and examined and then applied in a common setting to a public project where several efficient alternatives are proposed. While this research is not prompted by the desire to proclaim a winner from among the strategies, it is evident that some strategies make heroic attempts to reduce inequity. Issues connected with obtaining public consensus are also briefly mentioned.