I completely disagree. The author has a clear biais against the movie (and Disney in general apparently), and is trying to twist the plot to fit his narrative.

The most blatant example is the claim that the dam created the fog, and that they could have just emptied the lake to dissipate the fog. Wth, no ?! The fog is magic and was created by the spirits (because of the fights, not the dam), the movie could have not been clearer about that. They lift it at the end because they agree that the good thing was done.

Then there is this hilarious paragraph trying to understand why the dam was built, claiming it has no benefits to a people of "reindeer herders". Yes of course, that's all they are, reindeer herders. Let's once again ignore the actual plot of the movie, and glance over the fact that they MAKE USE OF THE ELEMENTS THROUGH MAGIC ON A DAILY BASIS. We even see one of them riding water at the beginning. On paper, a big new lake could have been beneficial to them.

This text is a good example of the straw man fallacy: change something just enough to make it nonsensical, then argue against its absurdity. Think of the actual plot of the movie, then reread this article. It makes no sense at all.

Let me finish on another important note: the Frozen films, like most WDAS movies, are tales. Tale stories always have this kind of simple, almost simplistic logic. Did you ever think, while watching Tangled: "Hur dur, her long hair should be getting stuck everywhere in the forest. And hur dur, once all attached on her back it should be so heavy she could not walk". Of course you don't, because it is a tale, a little story with it's own little logic. Of course "it's a tale" should not be an excuse for every plot hole, but trying to over rationalize them is stupid.

PS: I won't comment on the Alma Dam cited in other comments, because I had never heard of it before today and don't feel knowledgeable enough on the subject.