Federal flood control relies heavily on cost-benefit analysis (CBA), a methodology that prioritizes monetizable property values and economic outputs when allocating disaster-mitigation funds. Because CBA prioritizes monetizable property values and economic losses, high-value tourist districts consistently qualify for robust protection, while rural Native Hawaiian communities remain underserved. These inequities reveal deeper tensions between federal CBA frameworks and governing legal norms. The principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent under the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as Hawaiʻi’s constitutional public trust doctrine, impose obligations to protect cultural resources, ensure meaningful participation, and safeguard Indigenous relationships to land. This Note argues that flood-control policy requires reorientation rather than abandonment of CBA: a regulatory framework that integrates intangible cultural harms and elevates Indigenous decision-making. Such an approach reframes flood mitigation away from economic efficiency toward dignity, accountability, and equitable climate adaptation.
