Steve Heacock: As you know, because you've been following this closely that we've been going through this long process with regulators. There are seven different regulatory agencies involved in this project. The two key ones are E.G.L.E. (Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy), which is the state agency that will determine whether or not we can do the construction within the river. And the second is the E.P.A. (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), which sort of shadows or works with E.G.L.E. on the project. So, we've been working with them and there was a letter of objection filed by the E.P.A. back on December 14 (2022). Well, what that does by law says there's 90 days in which all issues have to be resolved and taken care of. So, of course, we're bumping right against that. That's would be March 14th. (2023). And so, the city, and in particular they are the applicant, has been talking with E.G.L.E. and E.P.A. about what do we do and how do we go forward? How do we make this work? And the decision made was the easiest way to continue the project was to withdraw the application and then resubmit a new application with a modified design that meets the desires of E.G.L.E. and E.P.A. And so that's what's been agreed to is that process.
Patrick Center: Okay. So, if I'm reading the news release correctly, it has something to do with, “go with outstanding wave features and less fill.” So, if you're a novice and you don't understand the language here. First, is that accurate? Is that the sticking point? And then, then what is a “standing wave feature and less fill?”
Steve Heacock: Sure. That’s a great question. We should have had you in the room when we wrote the darn thing. The project, as you’ll recall, had a number of elements to it. One was taking out the dams. Two was putting some structures so that we, you know, recover what was taken out 100 years ago and creates some better fish habitat and better fish passage, that kind of thing. And the other element of the project, and it was a big element, was these waves structures. And the reason it was important is that's what was creating the four ways that people would kayak on, and against, and sort of draw people to the project. So, the idea was to create something that was a very progressive design, really meant to create interest in the Grand River and Grand Rapids. So, if you're sitting in Chicago with a kayak, you're looking for something to for the weekend, you might go, ‘Well, I know these waves now exist in the Grand River, let's go to Grand Rapids and play on the waves.’ Those waves structures are what was holding up the permit from E.G.L.E. and E.P.A. And so this redesign will not have those wave structures in it.
Patrick Center: But that's the attraction or one of the many attractions. Is there a way to modify the wave structures so that you kind of get the best of both worlds?
Steve Heacock: Now you're describing what we've been doing with E.G.L.E. in particular for the last 4 years, is trying to find the right formula that could save the waves and the project. And at the end of the day, they told us that we just can't have the waves. Now, keep in mind that I'm talking about wave structures that create a certain size wave that, you know, you could depend on always being there, etc. The river will naturally have waves within it and naturally have some movement. It will be turbulent. It will be interesting. There will be the look and feel and sound of, of some rapids. It just won't be these wave structures that we've been touting now for a number of years. And so, you know, sure it’s a very different project that we’ll design and put forward in the next round.
Patrick Center: Are you disappointed?
Steve Heacock: Oh, my. Well, yes, certainly. And our board went through a level of that disappointment and also talked about, ‘Will Grand Rapids Whitewater continue with the project and decided unanimously after discussion that included the mayor, the city manager, that indeed we would. That there's enough good here and it will improve the river enough, and in enough ways, to make the project worthy of the effort.
Patrick Center: So, the wave structures, I don't want to harp on it too much, but there were some other projects that I think you were basing this project on that would attract these really high-performing kayakers or those who are seeking kind of that Olympic-style of kayaking. Is that what you had foreseen? And I guess what would be the level of competition or level of challenge?
Steve Heacock: So, we don’t know that, of course, because the new design has not been completed. So, we'll know more as we go through the process. But clearly, we are changing the emphasis. In fact, that's the idea. That the state was uncomfortable with putting, what they considered these artificial structures to create that kind of an amenity. They very much want the river to look more like other rivers in Michigan. And so, I think that's a fair way to look at it. That you know, if this looks like the Pine when we’re done or the Pere Marquette or the Sturgeon, then I think that's what E.G.L.E. is pushing toward. But again, I can't speak for them and nor can I speak to the city. So, we'll know more about that as we through the process. But what I do know is that we were not going to get the design we put forward and it became clear that that was not going to change. And so, to have a project we needed to take this action. The city needed to take this action, it’s not we, we didn't do it, but it's the city’s application.
Patrick Center: Is there the idea that you could come back to this later?
Steve Heacock: I think many of us have that in the back of our minds. Things change over time. You know, other states have done kind of these progressive kind of things and, you know, is there a chance for that? Absolutely. And there's nothing in, you know what, we're anticipating the new design that would prevent discussion in that later on.
Patrick Center: You've been very patient. We're talking 14 years.
Steve Heacock: Yep. Yep. And that's very accurate. And there's funding grants that expire. It’s not just fatigue, there's very real reasons to want to go forward. And there's so much dependent on the river being improved and access being improved. You know, think about the park projects. They’re thinking about this great, wonderful public museum project. Even the amphitheater and all those things are using access to the river as one of their assets. And so, creating that access became the priority.
