> Trying to bring NOLA - or any part of it - up to sea level with 'fill dirt' is essentially impossible: you're fighting the geography, combined with years of flood-control-gone-wrong. And the supposed price for a quasi-stable structural fill is just a *little* more than what it took to repair the Dome; something like $4b for 10 square miles. That doesn't count the cost of losing all the existing structures that are at ground level, or underground utility systems, etc. It would also take a lifetime or so to transport and haul enough to turn the City into a single gloriously uplifted levee. :)
>
> Post-1900 Galveston was able to stick on a seawall and lift a couple meters and survive plenty after the 1900 hurricane because it was a barrier island that was essentially being builting into a water-reflecting wedge. It wasn't a soup bowl that had no back end for flooding to wash out towards. They also had the convenience of dredging in the backyard to get the fill, no transport required. It also took almost a decade, for a 3x20-some mile island.
>
> On the other hand, if you actually did bring truckloads of... something... in to dump around, resilting the wetlands (current lack thereof) would be something worth considering. If the mud stopped drying out, then the City would stop sinking. Voila. At any rate, If the Dome brings any amount of revenue back to the city, then at least there are plenty of other options that could actually make a difference in the future.
>
> Sa"[insert obligatory Zeppelin lyrics]"ra

Well, I never said it would work.
The saturated subsoil is the big problem, and bedrock is a long way down. It was never a very good place to build a city. But some neighborhoods are pretty much a total loss anyway, so maybe ten square blocks of fill would be reasonable. Contrary to popular belief, there are large areas of New Orleans that are at, or above sea level. I think the city is worth saving.
Howard