[AD from SpringBay]

Would it be faster to rebuild the city upstream than where it is?

This is a real, actualized loss. And I've read a number of folks ask the same question you've asked. And it could be a good idea except for the fact that the land upstream is probably already owned by someone. And there are tens of thousands who own property that is currently under water. I can't imagine a way to fairly rebuild upstream - especially in the entitlement world of today - without someone sustaining the losses that have already occurred. Either the people who have lost everything will start from scratch, the people who own the land upstream might get shafted, or the good old American taxpayer will have to pay. This is just not a fair situation, but I don't know that spreading the unfairness among more people is the way to go. And, no, I don't have any bright ideas or solutions. This situation just sucks.

[RockinRight]

Actually, it could work.

Hopefully without the SCOTUS eminent domain coming into play.

There's mostly rural land upstream. Most of the time, rural land is cheaper on a per acre basis than urban. Land is not insured but homes are so that's a start. If I lived in St. James Parish (which would be a good location for a new city) and I owned 5 acres worth $200,000 on the current market-if someone says "we have 110 homeowners who have sustained losses that want to divide your land into 110 parcels at $10,000 each...do the math! I'd sell!

[Ol' Sox]

And it could be a good idea except for the fact that the land upstream is probably already owned by someone.

Now that the skids of eminent domain have been sufficiently greased by the Supreme Court, this shouldn't be a problem at all.

[Huck]

This situation just sucks.

They should build further inland. If they build on the same spot, they deserve to drown.

[knittnmom]

It's been done, albeit on a much smaller scale: http://www.soldiersgrove.com/village_history.htm