IA SWAT testing of weather based irrigation controlleris NOT adequate.
The IA SWAT testing of weather based irrigation controllers is NOT adequate for people interested in water conservation for the following reasons:

This testing would be like the drug companies controlling the FDA where they report data on only one dosage of their drug on one patient; where the drug companies could suppress bad data (death of patient); pay a new fee to the FDA to retest another patient until the drug company got favorable data to report to the FDA; and then the FDA would "pass" the drug onto the American public which would have no recourse.

These reasons are why Accurate WeatherSet has NOT submitted its controllers for IA SWAT testing.

With these "for the manufacturers standards," note that nearly all manufacturers of weather based irrigation scored 100% on Irrigation Adequacy. With these "for the manufacturers standards," nearly all controllers scored 0% on Irrigation Excess or overwatered. Hunter with their solar sync and Toro's and Irritrol's copy of Hunter's solar synce all overwater even over this short 30-day interval.These nearly uniform scores and extremely short testing interval make the IA SWAT testing of irrigation controllers useless when judging irrigation controllers for water conservation.

IA SWAT testing results shown

The IA and EPA should have used "standards set by water districts" with the purpose of establishing water conservation by manufacture of weather based irrigation controllers in the Evaluation of California Smart Controllers Program which was funded by the people of California. Millions of dollars went to water districts to subsize the installation of 1000s of weather based irrigation controllers. After the data was presented in first draft, the participating water district criticized and requested additions to the report. After a year of requested changes, the data was presented in this final report. So this report is based on evidence. This Evaluation clearly shows wide variations in water savings that happen when these controllers are placed in the hands of the consumers and contractors, and opearted for over a year. The chart below is simplified from Table 56 on page 110 of that report and shows the field performance of many of the weather based irrigation controller listed above or their technologies.

Chart showing water savings from Evaluation

Below is another reasons why MWD and EBMUD should continue with their 309-page procedures to test and report on Weather Based Irrigation Controlllers. The newest sensors for Hunter and Toro are NOT tested with the procedures in the 309-page report. Look at the IA SWAT testing for the Hunter controllers, you will see that Hunter replaced their ET System in 2011 with their Solar Synce sensor. They made this replacement to reduce cost from the ET System sensor which cost $260 to the Solar Sync which sells for $65. Yet in the IA SWAT testing, the Hunter Solar Synce sensor over-watered by 12.2 % in 2011 while their ET System sensor over-watered only 2.3% in 2007. I would have expected the second test (Solar Sync) to be better than the first test. If you look at at the Toro and Irritrol Climate Logic sensor, you see the same degradation in IA SWAT test results when compared to to ET Everywhere, also done to reduce cost. Since Toro/Irritrol Climnate Logic add-on their existing controllers copied Hunter's add-on to its existing controllers, it seems they also copied the degradation in water conservation.

Hunter and Toro's newest sensors NOT in 209 page report

California led the way in reducing auto emission and established a world-wide standard. It should do the same with Weather Based Irrigation Controllers and become standard for testing and reporting on this most important remaining part of water conservation. Such evidence-based tests will supplant IA SWAT and be used nationally by the EPA for their WaterSense labeling.