There is a quite common "design feature" in official functions which says if you stick to a rulebook you can be covered for indemnity and if you divert from a rulebook you are on your own. It stops risky behaviour. It is designed to stop things like Chernobyl.

In some situations, it turns into a flaw. "Computer says no"

This played out in Queensland over a flood which had a dam release issue, and went to law between 2 agencies, the government overall, and the affected businesses and householders who were flooded. The case had to be tried in another states courts, to avoid systematic bias issues.

Of course you need to stick to the rulebook. But the rulebook needs to be written to handle unforseen situations, which might be hard, but not impossible. Put it up the food chain, or provide from some limited relief from risk.

So, the emergency sirens weren't used because "they aren't for this function" and now we have "can't approve the water release" -Sounds like the reaction of somebody who is concerned they will answer for a decision not explicitly covered in the rulebook.

Or, they simply didn't understand their role, and their authority to act. Which of course, should be explained in the rulebook.

[edit: people are pointing out there were huge risks in using the sirens, and the rulebook was really explicit, and the community understood their narrow intent. So, its probably a bad example of my hypothesised "rulebook says no" thing]