Wisconsin Rural Electric Cooperative Association / First yearbook, 1938
Murray, V. M.
Our engineering department, pp. 25-30 PDF (1.7 MB)
WISCONsIN RuRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION tractor-Honold & LaPage, Inc., Sheboygan, Wis, $47,382.70) OCTOBER 26, 1937-Bids opened No. 45G3 Chippewa-70.05 miles. (Contractor-Holtz Brothers Electric Company, Chippewa Falls, Wis., $117,816.44) NOVEMBER 4, 1937-No. 38 Rock completed. NOVEMBER 4, 1937-No. 27 Buffalo completed. NOVEMBER 8, 1937-Bids opened No. 8043A Grant- 180.0 miles. (Contractor-L. C. Arnold, Inc., Eau. Claire, Wis., $164,415.60) NOVEMBER 10, 1937-Bids opened No. 8046 Lafayette-147.0 miles. (Contractor-C. A. Hooper Company, Madison, Wis., $119,170.58) NOVEMBER 16, 1937-No. 37 Trempealeau completed. NOVEMBER 16, 1937-Bids opened No. 8025B Monroe-71.05 miles. (Contractor-Honold & LaPage, Inc., Sheboygan, Wis., $60,287.42) DECEMBER 20, 1937-No. 14 Oconto completed. DECEMBER 21, 1937-Bids opened No. 8016B Douglas-30.0 miles. (Low bid not finally approved) DECEMBER 24, 1937-No. 31B Columbia completed. DECEMBER 30, 1937-No. 40 Barron completed. DECEMBER 30, 1937-No. 29A Clark completed. An analysis of the above will show 2,982.05 contract miles of line completed and 1,915.35 contract miles of line still under construction. In addition to this, of the 1,915.35 contract miles under construction, 1,020 miles of this amount is actually constructed but will not be reported as "completed" until the projects as whole units are finished. It is interesting to sit back and review this past year's experience in an attempt to discover just what has been learned regarding engineering for cooperatives-what conclusions can be drawn. Before attempting to draw any conclusions, it may be well to direct attention to the fact that "STATEWIDE" was not formed without opposition. Many objections were raised on the soundness of Cooperatives doing their own engineering through a statewide organization. Some of our engineer friendstook us aside and issued sincere friendly warnings as to just what we were up against,-and some of them took us to task publicly. For instance, here are some of the warnings we received: 1. A cooperative is a loosely bound organization and since every member is an owner you, as engineer, will have thousands of bosses, none of which will know anything about building lines, but all of which will try to tell you how to do it. 2. The average farmer is a penurious gentleman and you "STATE- wIDE" engineers will have to sacrifice good engineering in order to get results as cheaply as possible. 3. You are using federal money and it will be so wrapped up in red tape you will spend most of your time trying to pry it loose. Well, we have not as yet learned all the answers, but we have, at least, learned the answers to these three -objections. (1) As regards the first one: It is correct in one respect, the average farmer Co-op member knows nothing about building lines, but he realizes he knows nothing about it. The details are left entirely in the hands of the engineer,-embarrassingly so in some cases. For instance, the repre- sentatives of equipment manufacturers claim it is a waste of time for them to contact the individual members of our Boards of Directors in an attempt to sell their materials and equipment such as conductor, transformers, etc. 27
This material may be protected by copyright law (e.g., Title 17, US Code).| For information on re-use, see http://digital.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/Copyright