In 2002, the Irrigation Association came up with testing protocols for the industry: The result was the Smart Water Applications Technologies.
Several years ago, members of the irrigation industry and water purveyors came to the Irrigation Association with a problem: Small manufacturers and startup companies had approached them with claims that they had products that would save water. While larger water purveyors often make concrete suggestions to consumers (particularly homeowners) on how to save water, recommending specific products from these new companies made them uncomfortable. In addition, these water purveyors were concerned with the lack of standards for water-saving devices.
In 2002, the Irrigation Association sat down with the water purveyors to come up with a solution. Ultimately, it was decided that the association would pick a particular product category and then come up with a list of product testing protocols for the industry. The result was the Smart Water Applications Technologies (SWAT). According to the Irrigation Association’s Web site, “SWAT is a national initiative to achieve exceptional landscape water-use efficiency through the application of irrigation technology. SWAT identifies, researches, and promotes technological innovations and related management practices that advance the principles of efficient water use.”
The protocols have been developed through the Center for Irrigation Technology at California State University–Fresno. The objective behind this testing was to establish performance standards evaluating the “smart” controllers. The tests check performance, longevity, reliability, and comparative information. “The first category we picked was weather-based controllers,” says Cynthia Amos, marketing director of the Irrigation Association. “Another category is sensor-based controllers. The first two years of the initiative were focused on those two categories.” Protocols were also developed for climate-based controllers.
The development of the protocols went through many drafts, with comments from industry experts. “I don’t want to say the protocols are now final,” Amos adds. “We’re going to keep them in the draft stage so if we need[ed] to make some slight change to them, we could.”
The first products that have gone through the testing with the protocols are now available. “The testing is not graded. It is not pass-fail. We strongly emphasize that,” says Amos. “It is that the manufacturers have had their products tested and agreed to have the results posted online.”
Encouraging Conservation
As droughts and water shortages grip many areas of the country, the need for water conservation is becoming more urgent. “A lot of water is wasted in both agriculture and landscape irrigation when it’s not done properly,” says Deborah Hamlin, executive director of the Irrigation Association. “The local water districts are coming to us and asking what they can do to help solve our water problems. In San Antonio, for example, they were having a drought and were told they could only water their lawns every other day. These water districts wanted to work with us.”
Being efficient also means finding ways to encourage homeowners and businesses to avoid wasting water. In addition to preventing excess use of water for irrigation, overwatering washes away important nutrients in the soil. The technologies SWAT is helping develop are geared to create “smarter” controllers that operate based on need rather than on timers that set irrigation systems in action automatically. The controllers will be able to sense if the ground is already moist enough or if the evaporation rate is high or low. They can also monitor wind, slope of the land, plant type, and rainfall. The controllers will then be able to automatically adjust the amount of water used to maintain healthy growing conditions.
Where SWAT comes into play is by providing solid standards and information for communities or individuals who have questions about specific products. Now if a manufacturer says its product saves water, there are tests to back that up and an industry standard to base it on.
Unfortunately, conservation is a bad word for many people. There is a misconception, explains Hamlin, that conservation means turning off the water supply or the cost of water will increase. “In fact, these controllers aren’t that expensive, and there are a lot of water districts giving people rebates if you decide to purchase one.” Just as important is educating the consumer.
“What we see in the industry is that in most locations, water is cheap,” Hamlin continues. “It’s subsidized. You don’t pay that much attention to your water bill.”
Instead, the better approach would be to highlight the connection between monetary cost and environmental burden. Reducing water consumption can save money and lighten the demands placed on the environment. The message then becomes this: Save money and the environment by conserving water and reducing consumption. This is especially important in the western part of the country, where water is more costly.
“It encourages someone if they are putting in a new system to look at this new breed of technology in terms of the SWAT controllers, especially as we add more categories,” says Amos. “Look at things that can save water, whether it is the new smart controller or whether it is some sort of rain sensor. We really want to encourage everyone to be more efficient, to look at their practices with water, and to come up with some sort of water management plan.”
Standards and Protocols
The EPA has also introduced a WaterSense program. The goal of that program is to label products that are used in outdoor landscape irrigation. This program also shows the need for industry standards in order to get products labeled so that consumers can see which products may be more efficient.
“The goal is to be as efficient as possible, particularly with landscape water use,” says Amos. “We found that’s where a lot of water can be conserved.”
The EPA’s initiative is very important to SWAT’s overall goals. Hamlin compares the WaterSense program to the EPA’s Energy Star program. “When you see the Energy Star seal on a refrigerator, it might not be less expensive, but you feel good about buying it because in the long run it saves you something.” The EPA’s WaterSense program began with low-flush toilets.
The EPA is now working with the Irrigation Association and SWAT products as part of the WaterSense program. While incorporating the SWAT products, the EPA discovered that in order for the products to save water, they needed to be installed and maintained properly. Correct installation and maintenance require more human involvement than simply flushing a toilet, so the EPA added an extra step: Not only can a product earn the WaterSense label, but so can an individual. So far, the Irrigation Association is the first organization to join with this program. At this time, two exams have been approved—Certified Irrigation Contractors and Certified Irrigation Designers. Once an irrigation professional earns those certifications from the Irrigation Association, the individual can sign up with the EPA to receive the WaterSense logo. “It shows that you are using water-saving technology to install things,” explains Hamlin.
“What the EPA needs are the industry-wide standards,” says Amos. It is the participation of the Irrigation Association that made the creation and facilitation of the standards possible.
Successful Product Testing
The SWAT protocols are just beginning to take effect, but the Irrigation Association points out various case studies that have some connection to SWAT or show how changing attitudes about water efficiency can make a difference in water consumption.
For example, ETwater was the first company to complete the smart controller test protocol, according to Steve Snow, vice president of business development. “As soon as Center for Irrigation Technology [CIT] told us they were ready to test on November 1, 2004,” Snow explains, “our manager of product development drove to Fresno and delivered our controller to CIT and gave them the introductory training in the product. The second company to complete the test and publish results did so more than 12 months later—in early 2006.”
The methodology for testing was meticulous. The controller was required to accurately water six distinct virtual landscapes, all of which were programmed into the controller. “Each landscape represented a different matrix of 11 parameters that included soil type, slope, sun exposure, irrigation method, distribution uniformity, plant type, and precipitation rate. Each landscape, therefore, has unique irrigation requirements.”
According to Snow, the controller is assigned to an actual California Department of Water Resources–California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather station and must use weather data from that station to calculate the level of evapotranspiration (ET) and rainfall for each of the six landscapes. Using the supplied weather data, the controller must adjust watering for each station on a daily basis to ensure the landscapes don’t fall into water surplus or water deficit conditions.
In this case, the CIMIS weather station was in the Mount Shasta region. During the testing, 3.98 inches of rain were officially recorded. The ET Water Controller worked as planned, successfully delaying watering until the weather became drier. The testing period was a month long and was meant to test both the adequacy—the controller’s ability to provide adequate water for plant health by automatically adjusting watering periods—and efficiency, or the controller’s ability to irrigate without overwatering or creating runoff. When the tests were run, a passing grade from SWAT was 80% adequacy (out of 100%) and 65% efficiency (also out of 100%). ETwater’s testing came in at 100% and 98.5% respectively, showing right away that SWAT was providing an effective step in the right direction toward water conservation.
The ETwater Smart Controller has 222 selection choices from crop efficiency and worked well with the various types of soil, from sand to clay.
Weathermatic smart controllers were tested at the onsite testing area at California State University–Fresno.
“There are four methodologies: paging based with a remote weather station; Internet based with Internet communication to the controller; onsite technology, where the weather station is onsite; and historical,” explains Don Cooper, corporate account manager for Weathermatic. Weathermatic’s smart controllers use the onsite technology; therefore, the SWAT protocol testing needed to be done at CIT.
Testing covers a 30-day period. Requirements for the SWAT protocol include 2 inches of ET and 0.4 inch of rain during that time period. “It’s very tough to get those parameters,” says Cooper, “especially in a place like Fresno, where the weather is either dry and hot or wet and cool.” It took nearly a year before the conditions were right for Weathermatic’s testing to be completed, which occurred in March 2007.
Cooper is a fan of the SWAT protocol test. “The way the test is set up is fair to manufacturers,” he says. “It is representative data on how the product performs.” The virtual landscape can simulate conditions anywhere in the country, which also saves time and money because the testing can be done in one location. “The results have proved, too, that onsite controllers work as a valid concept,” he adds.
On Location
Along with the SWAT protocol testing, a number of case studies were done that show why both climate-based and soil-based smart controllers are important tools toward water conservation in irrigation systems. The case studies were done before any controllers were SWAT approved; however, Hamlin and Amos believe the case studies are essential to success of the program.
In Santa Barbara County, CA, nearly 50% of the water used goes into landscaping. Communities within the county developed the Santa Barbara County ET Controller Distribution and Installation Program, using WeatherTRAK ET Controller technology. Homeowners with high water usage were targeted as participants. Average water use for January and February and again for July, August, and September for the previous three years was determined for each customer. These averages were used to create a ratio of the difference between summer and winter use, determining the highest irrigation times.
During the initial site visit, purveyor staff conducted an irrigation check by collecting information for WeatherTRAK Programming, evaluating the irrigation system, troubleshooting problems, measuring lawn areas, and running each station for determination of precipitation rates. If there were more than 12 active stations, staff would also determine which stations would be merged at this time.
After monitoring the first installations for a month or two, the partner purveyors and the customers initially found increases in some of the customers’ water bills. It was soon learned that in order to achieve the highest level of efficiency, it was necessary to determine the precipitation rates of the irrigation systems, i.e., to program the specific information into the controller rather than rely on the factory settings. Follow-up evaluations to review the controller were set up, and input precipitation rates for spray heads in turf areas and precipitation rate determinations were included as part of the initial site visit for all installations after July 2002.
Initial data indicate that customers are reducing their monthly water use by approximately 26%, with a high of 59% savings and a low of 8% savings.
In Boulder, CO, a three-year study was performed during a drought period, and the cities in the area had mandatory or voluntary watering restrictions. It was determined that an average of 35,000 gallons of water per site was saved with the SWAT technologies.
During this case study, three stations were set up on turf grass sites. Each station recorded air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and solar radiation. The data were used daily to calculate standardized reference ET using the 2000 standardized American Society of Civil Engineers Penman-Monteith equation for turf grass. Stations automatically transmitted data via modem and cell phone twice daily to district headquarters. An additional issue is that the Colorado Front Range Region, where the study was held, has numerous microclimates that can affect the ET from one city to another. To account for this, different zones needed to be established for each weather station.
An important finding of the study during 2002 was that the WeatherTRAK controller was able to adapt to local drought restrictions with more or less effort, depending on the type of restrictions favored by the local utility staff. Boulder’s goal was to achieve a 25% reduction in outdoor water use during the summer of 2002. However, the city didn’t believe that most of its customers could translate a goal of this kind to a watering schedule, so a system was used where watering was limited to 15 minutes twice a week for each zone, as a shortcut approach, and Boulder applied this to all customers.
The WeatherTRAK irrigation controller adapted to each of the drought measures and produced water savings. From the standpoint of water savings, for the group as a whole, savings averaged 30,000 gallons per year. When accounts that saved no water were excluded, savings of 64,000 gallons per year were observed. Monetary savings on those sites, which reduced their water use, ranged from $51 to $668 and averaged $190 per site. Since these savings were based on relatively low water rates, even greater savings could be expected as water rates increase.
In the Puget Sound area of Washington, a climate-based smart controller test was conducted among residents who had high water consumption, using hundreds of gallons of water per day more in the summer landscaping months than in the winter. With the controllers, consumers saved an average of 20,000 gallons of water per year.
Interestingly, the ET controller tested without a rain sensor produced water savings. The ET controller and sensor produced a lot more savings than the ET controller alone when the sensor alone seemed to have no impact on water savings. One possible reason is this particular controller has a 24-hour rain delay, which keeps the controller from coming back on for 24 hours after the sensor signals it to stop.
When SWAT was developed, many believed there should be very technical parameters applied to the product testing. Equally important though, was the marketing aspect: Those conducing market research were concerned with proper promotions development to ensure the public will purchase the product. A marketing kit has been developed for water purveyors to use to endorse SWAT products in their district and to educate their customers on the new technologies. SWAT also addresses very different audiences. Within the industry, there are contractors, water purveyors, manufacturers, home developers, and distributors.
The marketing plan for SWAT includes focusing on landscape irrigation as a local rather than a national issue, building grassroots support for efficient landscape irrigation, defining and differentiating between the various “smart” controllers and how they differ from other types of irrigation systems, and focusing on the barriers to accepting SWAT. The homeowner’s role in water conservation is vital, and residential irrigation is the heart of SWAT. While there have been a lot of advances in technology on the agricultural side that have been adopted by the larger growers, SWAT is really concentrating on landscape. “That’s where most savings can be made for water consumption,” says Amos. The popularity of gardening increases the demand for water, as do the landscaping requirements of neighborhood associations.
For a water purveyor, increased demand from the residential market is very important. Even areas that aren’t in a drought must move toward more efficient technology; otherwise water companies may find they are forced to put restrictions or mandates on water usage. Restricted use is an anathema to the water purveyors. From a business standpoint they want to see water readily available for their customers. Ultimately the hope is that SWAT’s overall water-management philosophy of being as efficient as possible will tie in neatly with the purveyors’ need for readily available water.
In the future, SWAT can consider developing protocols for a number of other product categories. For example, prior to the annual conference and international irrigation show last year, a new product category, rain sensors, was voted on for SWAT development. SWAT will now begin developing protocols for this category while at the same time beginning market research. In April 2007, a meeting was held with water purveyors to get their input. In addition, the EPA held a meeting to revisit issues about the controllers.
“There are a number of categories we can look at,” says Amos, “but it is a fairly expensive proposition for each category. And it takes a while. It can take a couple of years to develop the protocols and get them ready for the actual testing. We may be ahead of the game somewhat with the rain sensors because, from what I understand, some universities have started developing some testing protocols—so hopefully we won’t be starting from scratch.”
The good news is the irrigation industry manufacturers are very proactive in trying to develop more efficient products.
“Water issues have moved more to the forefront,” says Amos. “The irrigation industry and the association are seeing more doors open because water is becoming a bigger priority across the United States.”
SWAT benefits everyone. The homeowner will continue to enjoy a luscious lawn and healthy garden while conserving water and saving money. Landscapers have a conservation tool that will not only save them money but also ensure their business continues to thrive. Water purveyors are less stretched to provide a healthy water supply throughout the year, especially during dry seasons. SWAT can also help ease drought conditions.