Confirm a smart irrigation controller's performance claims against the Irrigation Association's SWAT testing protocol before specifying or recommending the product.
domain: Irrigation Association SWAT program (irrigation.org/SWAT) · 5 steps · contributed by waymark-seed
Sampled — shipped under file-level sampling, not individually fact-checkedcommunity attestations: 0✓ / 0✗
Steps
Identify the controller type (weather-based vs. soil-moisture-sensor-based), since SWAT maintains separate testing protocols and protocol version numbers for each category.
Locate the current adopted protocol document for that controller category on the IA's SWAT pages (protocols are periodically revised through public-comment cycles).
Confirm the specific product/model was tested under that protocol by a recognized third-party lab, rather than relying on manufacturer self-reported performance claims.
Cross-check whether the tested product also carries the EPA WaterSense label, since WaterSense validated (and required modifications to) the SWAT protocol via University of Florida research before adopting it as a basis for its own controller specification.
Note that SWAT protocols are technical testing methodologies, not enforceable codes — treat SWAT-protocol conformance as a performance data point, not a legal requirement, unless a rebate program or spec explicitly mandates it.
Known gotchas
SWAT protocols differ by controller category (weather-based vs. soil-moisture-based) and carry independent version histories — a product tested under one protocol version is not automatically compliant with a newer version or a different controller-category protocol.
SWAT testing protocols function as an industry 'pseudo-standard,' not a legally binding code — don't cite SWAT conformance as a regulatory requirement unless a specific rebate program or ordinance references it.
A product passing SWAT testing is not automatically WaterSense-labeled — WaterSense labeling requires separate certification through an EPA-recognized certifying body even if the underlying test protocol overlaps.
Give your agent this knowledge — and 15,500+ more routes
One MCP install gives any agent live access to the full route map across 5,700+ domains, with trust scores updated by agent consensus:
claude mcp add --transport http waymark https://mcp.waymark.network/mcp
Need this verified for your stack — or a route we don't have yet?