Recently biologists have been interested in a tide-associated periodic behavior displayed by the diatom Hantzschia virgata, a microscopic golden-brown alga that inhabits that portion of a shoreline washed by tides (the intertidal zone).Diatoms of this species, sometimes called "commuter" diatoms, remain burrowed in the sand during high tide, and emerge on the sand surface during the daytime low tide. Just before the sand is inundated by the rising tide, the diatoms burrow again. Some scientists hypothesize that commuter diatoms know that it is low tide because they sense an environmental change, such as an alteration in temperature or a change in pressure caused by tidal movement. However, when diatoms are observed under constant conditions in a laboratory, they still display periodic behavior, continuing to burrow on schedule for several weeks. This indicates that commuter diatoms, rather than relying on environmental cues to keep time, possess an internal pacemaker or biological clock that enables them to anticipate periodic changes in the environment. A commuter diatom has an unusually accurate biological clock, a consequence of the unrelenting environmental pressures to which it is subjected; any diatoms that do not burrow before the tide arrives are washed away.

    This is not to suggest that the period of this biological clock is immutably fixed. Biologists have concluded that even though a diatom does not rely on the environment to keep time, environmental factors—including changes in the tide's hydrostatic pressure, salinity, mechanical agitation, and temperature—can alter the period of its biological clock according to changes in the tidal cycle. In short, the relation between an organism's biological clock and its environment is similar to that between a wristwatch and its owner: the owner cannot make the watch run faster or slower, but can reset the hands. However, this relation is complicated in intertidal dwellers such as commuter diatoms by the fact that these organisms areexposed to the solar-day cycle as well as to the tidal cycle, and sometimes display both solar-day and tidal periods in a single behavior. Commuter diatoms, for example, emerge only during those low tides that occur during the day.

    In Winters v. United States (1908), the Supreme Court held that the right to use waters flowing through or adjacent to the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was reserved to American Indians by the treaty establishing the reservation. Although this treaty did not mention water rights, the Court ruled that the federal government, when it created thereservation, intended to deal fairly with American Indians by preserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Later decisions, citing Winters, established that courts can find federal rights to reserve water for particular purposes if (1) the land in question lies within an enclave under exclusive federal jurisdiction, (2) the land has been formally withdrawn from federal public lands — i.e., withdrawn from the stock of federal lands available for private use under federal land use laws — and set aside or reserved, and (3) the circumstances reveal the government intended to reserve water as well as land when establishing the reservation.

    Some American Indian tribes have also established water rights through the courts based on their traditional diversion and use of certain waters prior to the United States' acquisition of sovereignty. For example, the Rio Grande pueblos already existed when the United States acquired sovereignty over New Mexico in 1848. Although they at that time became part of the United States, the pueblo lands never formally constituted a part of federal public lands; in any event, no treaty, statute, or executive order has ever designated or withdrawn the pueblos from public lands as American Indian reservations. This fact, however, has not barred application of the Winters doctrine. What constitutes an American Indian reservation is a question of practice, not of legal definition, and the pueblos have always been treated as reservations by the United States. This pragmatic approach is buttressed by Arizona v. California (1963), wherein the Supreme Court indicated that the manner in which any type of federal reservation is created does not affect the application to it of the Winters doctrine. Therefore, the reserved water rights of Pueblo Indians have priority over other citizens' water rights as of 1848, the year in which pueblos must be considered to have become reservations.