Steve Heacock: Well, what we were going to do is organize the rocks so that, and it wasn't a set-aside area, it was in a specific area. We put some rocks together, and these engineers are so amazing that they can create this hill underneath the water that makes a wave occur, and they can tell you exactly how big that wave's going to be, how it's going to run, what it's going to look like, and whether or not it serves the needs of the recreational users. And so, there were going to be in the lower reach, and that's really all we're talking about right now. the Lower East, so the space from Bridge Street to Fulton Street. In that run, there were going to be four of these waves. And it wasn't like we were channeling them out or anything. You know, they're in the river. They're in the regular river. It's just that part of the structure and part of what we're putting back in would be organized to create these waves, these recreation waves. And yeah, they were going to be, I mean, we would have never hosted an Olympics here, but certainly people would have come and trained here. And there would have been that kind of use. They were substantial.
Patrick Center: And they probably would have been quite aesthetically pleasing.
Steve Heacock: In fact, you know, when you read descriptions of what the river originally was, of course, there are no pictures, unfortunately, no drawings or paintings that we've seen that depict the rapids, you know, it was a roaring river. People found the river from a mile away by the sound. So, it would have provided some of that.
And the environmental benefits are just unlimited. And I. That may be one of our biggest frustrations is that, no, this is an urban river and it has been stripped and we have proof that it's been stripped and yet we're asked to act as if it's a pristine river. Because in a pristine river, justifiably anybody coming in wanting to make a change has to justify the movement of every rock, or the movement of a shovel full of dirt because it is pristine, it's natural, it's the way it's meant to be. Well, that's not the case. In fact, we're trying to restore it to that. We've kiddingly said this whole, you know, we don't need to mitigate because this whole project's a mitigation project. It all does the environment good.
So right now, they're actually are sturgeon in the river, some, and much of their spawning grounds has been destroyed by these dams. And when youth fish, they end up floating down the river. And what they normally do is attach to rocks or materials and have a place to kind of hide and protect themselves. If you just took the dams out of this river and left it the way it is now. There's no place to hide. It's just a shoot. So those juvenile fish have very little chance to survive. You start putting rocks and material and, you know, gravel and then some boulders and then, and then a little grass grows. And suddenly you end up with what can be a great environment for fish and other animals.
You know, we hired the world's best malacologist, the freshwater muscle person, Heidi Dunn out of Missouri is working for us and she's phenomenal. And the federal people all want to work with her because they want to learn from her because they know she's that great. The hydraulic engineers we use are people that do this stuff all over the West. They've built projects in Iowa and elsewhere, but also in Ontario. So, they work all over the place. And when the federal government was looking for somebody to do some mapping in the Mississippi River with respect to how the waves moved over rocks, these are the people they talked to. We hired these great, great people. So, it wasn't me talking to the state. It was these experts. And the problem is they didn't have the equivalent in the room, you know? It was just a different, and forgive me, Patrick, it's far, far too political, but you know, part of the problem with strong bureaucracies that are unchecked can be that you end up with people that believe they know a lot more than they really do. And there's no check on it. And I get how they get there. It's natural because everybody around them is trying to appease them and trying to, you know, and so they end up believing they know what a hydraulic engineer knows and what a malacologist knows. And we offered at one point to hire them consultants. You pick them and we'll pay for them so that you've got somebody in the room, you know, with that equivalent knowledge. And of course, they were insulted because they believe they have all of that already. And I'm not one to judge them. Maybe they do. I don't know that. I just know that it was incredibly frustrating for our experts because they often didn't feel like they were heard.
Once we knew that they were not going to approve the project with waves in it and the city had agreed to that with the state and the city had said they would not bring litigation of any kind to put pressure on them to have somebody else look at it, the question for Grand Rapids Whitewater was do you just give up and walk away or do you continue with the project? And our board struggled with it and went through two or three meetings considering everything in front of it. And it, I think, very wisely decided, listen, you know, we've got to put our dreams and egos aside and embrace this new project because it does do some amazing things. It, first of all, getting the dams out of there and making the river accessible in as safe a fashion as feasible, you know, means that suddenly you can activate the shoreline. All these projects that are being done, including the shoreline of the amphitheater, obviously the public museum, you know, all the parks that are planned, they all create access to the river. You can't do that if the dams are still there because you're encouraging people to get into a river that might, you know, that's very dangerous. So, we really felt like we had an obligation because we were sort of the catalysts of all those projects. We had an obligation to at least go through that part so that something's done with the in water to make it accessible.
And so, then our job was, how do we make it as good as we possibly can? And what the state wanted to do initially was, just take out the dams and let the river run. And we viewed that, frankly, as a disaster in the making with very little appeal environmentally or recreationally or otherwise. And while it would make the river accessible, it would be barely so because of the rush of the water and just because it wouldn't be interesting. So, we spent time, and our first thought was, well, you want to take the waves out. We'll take the waves out. Here's the design without the waves and we can move on, get this done within a couple of months. They said, no, you need to start all over again and take the waves out and then justify every rock you put back into the river. We spent a couple of months on that. Finally, talk them into letting us present some designs that were comprehensive rather than doing it rock by rock. Here's a comprehensive set of designs. And we offered three or four different designs and ended up concluding, and by the way in this process, the state was cooperative and came to the meetings and worked with us. So, it was the city really leading it with us and the state in this effort and ended up with now this new design that it appears everybody's going to be happy with. And the design, Patrick, is it is interesting. It will create rapids, it will create whitewater, it will create some sound. Is it as impressive and massive as what we were going to do? No. Is it something that will attract people from Chicago to come kayak? Probably not. But it'll be a great improvement from what's there now. It's still a project worth doing. And that's what our board decided wisely and has stuck to that and has pushed forward. Doesn't mean that they're happy you're going to join the parade when this is approved, but they're pragmatic, good people that want to see something good done and they believe this is a good one. So that's sort of where we are. And they incorporate some very innovative use of things the state has allowed elsewhere, but elsewhere they're ugly. They're going to be interesting and kind of prudent here. So, the W-weir, for example, is the term. And in some places, they're just big lines of rock, kind of in a U, two U or W form. Here it's going to be a series that kind of looks more natural and cascading. Frankly, probably much like it was originally.
Patrick Center: So, you'll still get the 18-foot drop and people who live in West Michigan will be the ones to experience and enjoy it.
Steve Heacock: Let me clarify too, because I'm mixing things here. The 18-foot drop is the whole river is Ann Street to Fulton. Within this lower reach that we're working on right now, that's from Bridge Street to Fulton Street. That's an eight-foot drop. And so that's what will happen there. The upper reach then is open for discussion. And those discussions will start immediately and really already have on how that will be built. Now, the interesting part of the upper reaches, that's where the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, that's the treaty between Canada and the U.S. They'll be intimately involved because a big part of that will be to build a viable lamprey barrier and to somehow replace the 6th Street Dam with something that's designed to stop lamprey from getting up to spawning areas.
Patrick Center: In essence, if you can get the lower branch. design work approved that opens the door?
Steve Heacock: There's some of that because the next phase will design within the parameters they've required us to meet in the lower reach. And so long as we stay within those parameters, it seems as if they would approve it. So that's exactly right. The other thing is the upper reach is much more complicated because there's more drop. You know that 6th Street dam is there for a reason, and it's as high as it is for a reason where that's what's effectively being replaced. So, the volume of water, the magnitude of its flow, all of that is enhanced, which means it'll take more material to replace that grade. So, it'll be a very, very interesting project in its own right. But I'm telling you, to answer your question, the lower reach will be a very attractive, fun amenity primarily for local folks, but certainly visitors will enjoy it too. It just won't be a competitive kayak.
Patrick Center: Steve Heacock, President and CEO of Grand Rapids Whitewater, thank you for your time.