From the title, I thought the story was going to be more about the possibly long term damage or effects of having a dam be dry, such as (I imagine) unanticipate

From the title, I thought the story was going to be more about the possibly long term damage or effects of having a dam be dry, such as (I imagine) unanticipated effects on the dam hardware drying out, the lake bed, or other possibly interesting effects. But it was more about the strategy and purpose of dams in general. That's ok, just not what I was expecting. On a different note, I puzzle over in my mind how city planners deal with the fact that they have to supply water to a city no matter what the use of it is, and cannot (?) price the water differently based on the usage. For example, what "right" or pricing should a casino in Las Vegas be allowed to have on water, compared to a residential house with a family in it? Is it reasonable in a desert city to have to pay and support water being produced at great cost, only to be used for entertainment and leisure? How about agriculture? And even then, when does it get too expensive to justify? Does a city have a right to exist in a place which is arid? And when does government declare (if it ever does) that it's simply too hard or expensive to support a city existing in a place that has a scarcity of water? Also related, whenever I see water restrictions being asked of a city/state's population, I wonder, why can prices not serve to regulate people's consumption (beyond a certain minimum human right to have a certain amount of water available for subsistence) and we have to ask people to do a favor for the collective good instead of charge them for a commodity? I think we are soon running into the situation where pricing water essentially at the cost of moving it around, rather than its scarcity and demand, may cause us trouble(s).