not advocating the draw, but if folks in control of leasing decisions didn't want water levels to drop from level X to level Y, why were lease payments accepted for storing and water rights for any of the water between levels X and Y? Why didn't those who control leasing storage say, back when, they wouldn't lease that much additional water storage. Instead of taking money to hold the water, why didn't they say sorry, that water is needed here. To make it available would be bad for the lake, bad for the immediate local economy and bad for other lakes?

Seems that today's danger will robinson argument would be a stronger argument if they hadn't already agreed, and been paid, to hold the water for someone else to use when the someone else's choose.