After initially refusing to do so, the Grand River Dam Authority on Wednesday said it would give federal regulators supporting documents it used to study flooding around the northeastern Oklahoma town of Miami. 

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ordered the study after it determined the Grand River Dam Authority was responsible for the flooding. The authority has appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Grand River Dam Authority submitted the report in November, which was conducted by engineering consultant Mead & Hunt. The study concluded that the agency should not be required to buy out landowners affected by flooding and that the Pensacola Dam, which impounds Grand Lake, is not a significant contributor to the flooding. The City of Miami and landowners in the area have long said the dam is one of the reasons for chronic flooding in the area.

The following month, the federal regulator asked the authority for supporting documentation. An attorney for the Grand River Dam Authority sent a letter back in January, arguing that it had no obligation to send the records because a federal appeals court had jurisdiction over the case.  The federal regulator asked again for the records in February and gave the state agency 15 days to respond.

Charles Sensiba, an attorney for the Grand River Dam Authority wrote back Wednesday and said that the state agency would turn over the records while calling the federal regulator’s request “unreasonable and oblivious” in light of the Trump Administration’s deregulatory bent.

“With respect, staff’s February 18 letter — issued at a time when the Administration is demanding administrative economy and has expressly charged agencies to reduce regulatory burdens facing hydropower — seems to GRDA to be both unreasonable and oblivious,” Sensiba wrote.

Sensiba wrote that there is no substantial evidence that supports a finding that any additional land buyouts are necessary and that the federal regulator would be overstepping its authority to require the purchases. 

Because of the report’s supporting documentation’s file format, Sensiba wrote, it could not be submitted electronically through FERC’s online filing system and would be delivered via flash drive.