Skip to main content
PMC home page
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health logoLink to International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
. 2018 Mar 21;15(4):567. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15040567

Challenges and Opportunities for Tribal Waters: Addressing Disparities in Safe Public Drinking Water on the Crow Reservation in Montana, USA

John T Doyle 1,2,3,4, Larry Kindness 1,2,4, James Realbird 1,4, Margaret J Eggers 2,5,6,*, Anne K Camper 2,5,7
PMCID: PMC5923609  PMID: 29561815

Abstract

Disparities in access to safe public drinking water are increasingly being recognized as contributing to health disparities and environmental injustice for vulnerable communities in the United States. As the Co-Directors of the Apsaálooke Water and Wastewater Authority (AWWWA) for the Crow Tribe, with our academic partners, we present here the multiple and complex challenges we have addressed in improving and maintaining tribal water and wastewater infrastructure, including the identification of diverse funding sources for infrastructure construction, the need for many kinds of specialized expertise and long-term stability of project personnel, ratepayer difficulty in paying for services, an ongoing legacy of inadequate infrastructure planning, and lack of water quality research capacity. As a tribal entity, the AWWWA faces additional challenges, including the complex jurisdictional issues affecting all phases of our work, lack of authority to create water districts, and additional legal and regulatory gaps—especially with regards to environmental protection. Despite these obstacles, the AWWWA and Crow Tribe have successfully upgraded much of the local water and wastewater infrastructure. We find that ensuring safe public drinking water for tribal and other disadvantaged U.S. communities will require comprehensive, community-engaged approaches across a broad range of stakeholders to successfully address these complex legal, regulatory, policy, community capacity, and financial challenges.

Keywords: drinking water, municipal water, water infrastructure, water treatment, health disparities, environmental justice, environmental health, Native American, Indian law, community-engaged research, CBPR

1. Introduction

Disparities in access to safe drinking water are increasingly being recognized as contributing to health disparities and environmental injustice for tribal and other vulnerable and rural populations in the United States [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Poor quality or unsafe municipal water, denial of access to municipal water, contaminated home well water, and even lack of indoor plumbing are all contributing factors [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Several authors have identified a need to understand factors contributing to disparities associated with water infrastructure [5,7], motivating us to share lessons we have learned in addressing water infrastructure challenges in our tribal community.

The Crow Reservation

The Apsaálooke (Crow) people live in south-central Montana, on a reservation centered in the tribe’s original homelands. The tribe has approximately 11,000 members, about 7900 of whom live on the Reservation [2,39]. Public water and wastewater service is available for residents of the larger towns, compromising about half the population [15]. The principal Reservation towns of Crow Agency, Lodge Grass, Wyola, and Pryor are 80–95% Native American [40]. Average per capita income across the Crow Reservation ranges from $7354 to $8130, depending on the tribal community—a mere 33% of the Montana average and 30% of the 2010 national average [2,41]. The governmental headquarters of the Crow Tribe—as well as the Indian Health Service Hospital (IHS); Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) offices; our Tribal College, Little Big Horn College (LBHC); and other services—are all in Crow Agency, the most populous Reservation town with an estimated 2038 residents as of 2016 [40].

The municipal water treatment plant in Crow Agency draws surface water from the Little Bighorn River. As Crow Tribal members, we have always lived along the Little Bighorn River; we spent our childhoods playing, swimming, fishing, hunting and berry picking along the river. Our families always drew water directly from the river for both household and ceremonial consumption, and some of those practices continue today. Given our close ties to the river, we observed and remember that water quality began visibly deteriorating in the late 1970s, with the intensification of both ranching and farming, and a growing population. Our reports of evident water quality problems to the federal authorities, including leakage from municipal sewage lines directly into the river, went unresolved. We realized that the aging municipal water and wastewater infrastructure was deteriorating and inadequate to serve the growing population, and that we had to address these issues ourselves. Several of us formed the Apsaálooke Water and Wastewater Authority (AWWWA), volunteering to take on the responsibility for tribal water and wastewater infrastructure.

In 2005, a group of tribal stakeholders and a Little Big Horn College (LBHC) faculty member conducted a week-long community wide environmental health assessment, with technical support from several federal volunteers [42,43], and concluded that water contamination was the most serious health threat affecting the greatest number of tribal members. Failing water and wastewater infrastructure was a contributing factor. We recognized that as Crow Tribal members, we needed to provide good water for our people. As AWWWA directors, we joined forces with this group, and together we and our colleagues initiated the creation of the Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee (CEHSC) [44,45] to reduce health risks and health disparities from unsafe drinking water and contaminated rivers.

As the AWWWA and the CEHSC, we have been working with our academic partners since 2004 to improve both drinking water and river water quality on our Reservation in south-central Montana [2,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. Community based participatory research involving a network of partners [67,68] has helped us get the data and funding needed to improve water and wastewater infrastructure in Crow Agency, our largest community [53,54]. We have been able to fund and conduct research documenting serious microbial contamination of our rivers [46,47,61]; a water treatment system in Crow Agency unable to remove all parasites (Cryptosporidium oocysts) during spring runoff [46,47]; widespread metals, nitrate, and microbial contamination of home well water [2,16,50,52,57,58,59,60,62,64,65]; and threats to our water supplies and hence community health from climate change [49,55,56].

In this paper, we and our CEHSC colleagues (Eggers and Camper) describe difficulties encountered in repairing and replacing Crow Tribal public water and wastewater infrastructure, and some of the strategies that have been helpful in overcoming the hurdles. Some of these challenges are shared by many vulnerable rural communities [1,5,6,7,8,10,11,17,19,21,38]; others stem from laws and regulations (or lack thereof) unique to Native American communities.

2. Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements

The water and wastewater infrastructure in Crow Agency was built more than 100 years ago, to serve a population less than half of what it is today. No major upgrades of the distribution system nor the sewage lagoon had been undertaken since. Over the past 10 years, the AWWWA—with support from our partners—has secured almost 50 federal, state, county and tribal grants and several loans totaling more than $20 million to date. With this funding, (1) the inadequate, failing sewage lagoon has been replaced with a modern one; (2) 75% of old wastewater lines have been replaced; (3) new, upgraded water and wastewater connections to local schools have been installed; (4) about 50% of water lines have been replaced; (5) a “water salesman” was installed to sell town water at minimal cost to any community member; and (6) 19 broken fire hydrants were replaced. This work continues, with the relocation of the wastewater lift station (out of the floodplain) being one of our current priorities. In the process, we have learned that many kinds of expertise are essential to this work, and that the challenges are exacerbated by legal and jurisdictional issues unique to Reservation communities [53,54].

2.1. The Challenges of Improving Water and Wastewater Infrastructure

Rural communities, especially those with limited economic opportunities, face multiple challenges in funding, building and successfully operating water and wastewater infrastructure [1,5,6,7,8,10,11,17,19,21,38]. In our experience, tribal communities face these as well as additional unique challenges.

First, and not unique to tribes, this work takes community-wide self-determination and initiative. Learning and following the tenets of community-based participatory research (CBPR) [67,68] has been both helpful and essential. Operating according to CBPR principles has given our community ownership of the work and provided the broad support necessary to carry out this long-term effort. CBPR has supplied an effective framework to collaborate with academic partners on the needed water quality research [44,45].

Project leadership must make a long-term commitment to this work. Renovating municipal water and wastewater infrastructure is an enormous, complicated, and lengthy job, requiring substantial experience and institutional memory. If the staff turned over every two or four years with tribal elections (as often happens), the work would be impossible. The Crow Tribe created the Apsaalooke Water and Wastewater Authority (AWWWA) as an independent entity, which has allowed continuity.

Water quality data are essential for understanding health threats from contaminated water sources, and for raising the funds to mitigate them through water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades. Our decades of observations of river water quality deterioration lacked the scientific credibility necessary to support grant proposals. Consequently, we partnered with researchers at Montana State University Bozeman (MSU) and at LBHC to secure research funding, obtain access to lab facilities and conduct the requisite water quality research. The surface and groundwater data subsequently obtained, elucidating microbial and mineral contamination, have supported successful infrastructure grant proposals and informed the community of health risks from water sources. We—and tribal college science majors—have gained research experience in the process, building our tribe’s capacity to conduct research with academic partners. We are committed to sharing our results in our own communities, as well as through webinars and conference presentations such as the National Congress of American Indians’ Tribal Leader Scholars Forum and through journal publications [2,16,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66].

In addition to research data, access to grant writing expertise and knowledge of the diverse funding sources for water and wastewater infrastructure are essential. Learning where to seek funding has been one of the more difficult tasks. Partnering with an excellent grant writer has helped [69], but we have also learned about diverse funding sources by actively seeking out opportunities through our networks, and by listening to and reading the news. Once funding is secured, federal and state grant administration expertise is necessary. AWWWA Director Doyle, researcher Eggers and the LBHC Grants Manager all completed professional short-course training in federal grants administration, which was worthwhile [70]. An additional issue is that many funding sources operate on a reimbursement basis, which requires that the tribe or water authority has adequate liquidity to be able to front the funds.

As AWWWA Directors, we must have sufficient engineering knowledge to make informed decisions about many aspects of water and wastewater infrastructure, as well as a trusted engineering firm with whom to partner [53,54]. We hear time and again of tribal and other minority communities purchasing water and wastewater systems, without being fully aware of or planning for the operation and maintenance costs, only to discover that they cannot afford to operate the new systems they have acquired. If engineering firms were required to estimate operation and maintenance costs when they propose new treatment systems, tribes and other communities would be in a better position to make informed decisions about major infrastructure purchases [71].

2.2. Tribes Face Additional Complexities and Hurdles in Addressing Water Infrastructure Needs

Ongoing access to legal counsel is essential, especially for tribes. Jurisdictional issues for infrastructure work on tribal lands are multiple, complex, challenging, and time consuming to resolve. Policy and regulatory challenges stem particularly from overlapping, conflicting and/or gaps in tribal/federal/state/county jurisdiction on Reservations, further complicated by intersecting responsibilities of the tribe, county, Indian Health Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the Environmental Protection Agency.

2.2.1. Obtaining Rights of Way

Whenever renovations are made to water distribution systems or wastewater collection and treatment systems, new rights of way are often needed. On Reservations, obtaining rights of way is complicated by tribal and individual trust lands administered by the BIA, in addition to the usual federal/state/county/railroad/private mix of land ownership. As the BIA explains [72]:

A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.

This goes back to an 1823 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Johnson vs. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543 (1823), page 64, supra, which ruled that the tribal government has a right of occupancy—not ownership of fee title—to their Reservation, which is held “in trust” for them by the federal government [73]. When the Dawes Act was passed in 1887, individual parcels of the Crow Reservation were allotted to tribal members, who then had a right of occupancy and use of their “allotment”, although the land was still in Trust [74]. After 21 years, they could apply to remove their allotment land from Trust, convert it to fee simple ownership, pay real estate taxes on the land and sell it if they wished to do so. As a result, all these types of land ownership exist today (tribal trust, individual trust, fee simple) in a checkerboard pattern across the Reservation. Each type of land ownership requires a different process to obtain a right of way (ROW) to lay water or wastewater lines. For instance, while it is possible to get an ROW either parallel to or across a state road, federal roads only allow ROWs across (but not parallel to) the road. Rights of way across Trust lands, whether ‘occupied’ by the tribal government or by an individual, require permission from the occupants first, and then from the BIA. The BIA requires an environmental assessment be done before an ROW will be granted, and this is a lengthy process. It is essential to understand all the different ROW requirements for each type of land ownership when planning a water/wastewater infrastructure project, so that the water lines are planned for routes where ROW can be obtained, and the project budget covers all the anticipated ROW expenditures.

2.2.2. Fractionation of Land Ownership

ROWs across Trust lands are further complicated by ‘fractionation’ of land ownership. Individual allotted lands have now been handed down to multiple heirs as tenants in common, through multiple generations over the past 100 years, resulting in highly fractionated lands. One piece of trust land can have hundreds of people sharing a small parcel with undivided interests [75,76,77,78]. In a thorough analysis of “Allotment, fractionation, and the Indian land tenure problem”, Shoemaker writes [75]:

The personal and political effects of fractionation are critical for both tribal governments and their citizens. Fractionation prevents efficient use of property, impedes individual and community economic development, and fundamentally bars realization of successful tribal self-determination and self-governance.

For the AWWWA, fractionation has created complex, difficult, and expensive issues with obtaining the necessary rights of way to replace water and wastewater distribution lines. Although the Crow Tribal government does have the authority to override the BIA ROW process and any objections by the occupants of the Trust land in question, neither the tribal government nor the AWWWA wished to resort to this harsh procedure.

2.2.3. Tribal Lack of Eminent Domain Authority

Obtaining ROWs across lands held in fee simple presents other challenges, if landowners are not willing to grant an ROW at market value. Whereas counties can resort to eminent domain procedures, tribal governments do not own their land in fee simple [72,73], and therefore do not have clear eminent domain authority [79]. In our case, the county was blocked from using its eminent domain authority to help the tribe. The state’s authority became our only recourse. While we were eventually able to obtain the necessary rights of way with the help of an eminent domain attorney, it became a lengthy, sometimes contentious and very expensive process.

2.2.4. Conflicting Regulations Concerning Tribal Preference in Hiring and in Awarding Contracts

Tribes have the legal right to adopt a Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO), called Workforce Protection, to boost tribal employment when the source of funding is tribal income or federal Public Law 93–638 contracts [80]. However, TERO cannot be applied to the award of contracts or hiring for jobs which are funded by or through the State of Montana, such as Community Development Block Grants. Many water infrastructure projects are so costly that multiple sources of funding—with different requirements for the application of Indian preference and payment of TERO fees—must be combined to be able to finance a single project. This conflict has the potential to derail projects altogether [54].

2.2.5. Sovereign Immunity

The award of grants from the State of Montana comes with an additional requirement: partial waiver of sovereign immunity. Under Montana Code Annotated 90-6-209, the Coal Board of the State of Montana cannot award a grant to a tribe unless [81]:

The governing body of the tribe has agreed:

  • (1)

    To waive its immunity from suit on any issue specifically arising from the transaction of a grant obtained under this part; and

  • (2)

    To the adjudication of any dispute arising out of the grant transaction in the district court of the first judicial district of the State of Montana…

Each state agency has similar, but slightly different requirements for waivers of sovereign immunity, so each state grant requires negotiation with the tribe as to the precise terms. Once the exact wording has been agreed upon, the Crow Tribal Chairman and the Crow Tribal Legislature must agree to a limited waiver of sovereignty for the grant transaction, by passing a Joint Action Resolution [82], another process that can be difficult and time consuming.

2.2.6. Dispute Resolution

These legal and regulatory hurdles and inconsistencies can be challenging to resolve to all parties’ satisfaction. Planning in advance for dispute resolution is necessary. Funding agencies want disputes to go to federal District Court (e.g., [81]), while the tribe wants them to go to Tribal Court, and then Federal Court if need be. The procedure for settling disputes must be negotiated and included in contracts. Arbitration can help [54].

2.2.7. Lack of Planning

The historic and ongoing lack of planning impacts infrastructure construction and operation. Housing, even federally funded housing, is still being built without adequate infrastructure planning. For instance, housing has been built where there is insufficient water pressure in the distribution system to accommodate more homes, despite the expressed concerns of the AWWWA. The lift station serving the south end of Crow Agency was built in the flood zone; it was so damaged in the 2011 flood that wastewater service was shut down for a couple weeks, including to the Indian Health Service hospital. Spring floods appear to be increasing in severity and frequency [56], but the capacity and funding to plan for and adapt to worse floods and other severe weather events are lacking. The AWWWA is left to solve physical and fiscal problems which could have been avoided by adequate planning [53,54].

2.2.8. Legacy of Inadequate Environmental Enforcement

A long and continuing history of poor environmental enforcement also contributes to the expenses of building, maintaining and operating water infrastructure. Below the land surface, there is a dumping ground resulting from a century of neglect and abandonment. When distribution lines are installed or replaced, cleaning up unmapped, unanticipated underground hazards significantly delay schedules and increase costs [54]. For instance, there is an abandoned steam-generating power plant in Crow, which used to heat some of the federal buildings. The underground asbestos-wrapped steel lines for steam delivery were never removed, and no complete map of the steam distribution system exists. When the AWWWA excavated for water and wastewater lines, the excavators would run into these abandoned steam lines, which triggered a requirement to develop an asbestos mitigation plan. Such plans had to be approved by multiple departments of the BIA and then implemented—another costly and time-consuming process.

The river source water for the Crow Agency water treatment plant has severe microbial contamination in the spring, to which non-point source pollution from agriculture [61], failing home septic systems and straight piping from homes (i.e., completely untreated wastewater) all contribute. There is no agency taking responsibility for permitting and inspecting home septic systems on the Reservation. The water treatment plant’s technology cannot effectively handle the springtime spike in pathogen load, for instance, from Cryptosporidium oocysts [46,47].

2.2.9. Lack of Tribal Authority to Create Water Districts

Tribal budgets to operate and maintain water and wastewater systems cannot be supported through the mechanisms available to non-tribal communities, as tribes lack the legal authority to create a water district. Off reservation, communities form water districts, vote on members to run the district and tax residents to support water and wastewater systems. However, since this authority comes from state law, it is not available to Reservation communities. Without the ability to form a water district, tribes have less ownership, and lose the ability to raise funds through taxation and to guarantee the construction loans as required by some funding agencies. Even if major infrastructure can be upgraded or replaced through grants, inadequate operation and maintenance budgets mean dedicated operators are underpaid. In Crow, due to budget constraints, operators routinely take on major repair jobs that most utilities would contract out. The water and wastewater plants are severely under staffed and some maintenance and repair needs beyond the expertise of the operators (such as damage to computerized systems) simply go unaddressed.

2.2.10. Lack of Operator Certification Requirements

The requirement for water treatment plant operators to be certified has long been a state function [83], without any comparable federal requirement for tribal lands (which are not under State jurisdiction). Hence, adequate tribal funding has not been provided for operators to obtain training for certification, and even operators who have years of valuable on the job water and wastewater experience have no easy path to obtain certification. This leaves tribal administrators with no clear standard to assess the qualifications of applicants for these positions. This landscape is starting to change as the regional EPA office emphasizes the need for certified operators, but it remains difficult for tribal operators to acquire all the necessary training and skills anywhere within driving distance.

3. Conclusions

Building, operating, and maintaining effective water and wastewater infrastructure is difficult for many vulnerable communities, especially those with limited financial, technical, and administrative resources. Inability to meet all these challenges can result in communities not receiving safe public drinking water, and hence contributes to health disparities. Some of the issues described above are not unique to tribes, e.g., the need for long term stability of project personnel; access to many kinds of specialized expertise; ratepayer difficulty in paying for services; lack of knowledge of funding sources for water infrastructure; and lack of research capacity to assess and document water quality issues. As a tribal entity, the AWWWA faced and continues to address additional challenges, including the complex jurisdictional issues affecting many aspects of fundraising, design, contracting and construction; lack of authority to create water districts; other legal and regulatory gaps—especially with regards to environmental enforcement; a legacy of inadequate infrastructure planning and the potential for repeated personnel turnover with the tribal election cycle. Despite these obstacles, the AWWWA and Crow Tribe have been successful in replacing and upgrading water and wastewater infrastructure for the Reservation’s largest community. The AWWWA’s work is ongoing, as decades of deferred maintenance, population growth and worsening source water quality have left every Reservation community with unmet water infrastructure repair and replacement needs. Doyle, Eggers, Camper, and other members of the CEHSC continue to work on other water quality issues on the Reservation, in collaboration with LBHC and MSU.

Ensuring safe public drinking water for tribal and other disadvantaged communities throughout the United States will require comprehensive, community-engaged approaches across a broad range of stakeholders to successfully address these complex legal, regulatory, policy, financial and capacity challenges.

Acknowledgments

We especially thank Crow Tribal member Urban Bear Don’t Walk, the longtime attorney for the Apsaalooke Water & Wastewater Authority, without whom we could never have accomplished this work. He deserved to be a co-author on this paper, however was unable to review it. We also thank the many Crow Tribal community members who have supported us. Additional members of the Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee have contributed significantly to this overall effort, especially Myra Lefthand (retired Community Health Educator, Indian Health Service) and Sara Young (retired educator & administrator). This work would not have been possible without the long-term support of the late Crow Tribal Chairman Carl Venne, tribal grants and contracts administrator Frances Pretty Paint, and many other administrators and colleagues with the Crow Tribe, Little Big Horn College, and Montana State University Bozeman who did whatever they could to help. Additional partners include Nittany Grantworks; Morrison & Maierle Systems Corporation; the U.S. Navy Seabees; and Montana offices of the EPA, USGS, and USF&WS. Tribal member Steven Jennings, Esq., agreed to a land swap to allow for construction of the new wastewater lagoon, and donated some of the value of his land in the process.

Construction funding has been provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Indian Health Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Montana Department of Commerce, MT Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the Crow Tribe of Indians, Big Horn County, the Navy Seabees and land donor Steven Jennings.

Research funding has been provided by Award #P20MD002317 (Center for Native Health Partnerships) from the National Institute for Minority Health & Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health (NIH); Awards RD83559401-0 and #RD83370601-0 from the National Center for Environmental Research, Environmental Protection Agency (NCER EPA) and EPA STAR Research Assistance Agreement #FP91674401; Award 1P50ES026102-01 (Center for Native Environmental Health Equity Research) from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH & NCER EPA; and Award #P20 RR-16455-04 (Montana INBRE) from the IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH. Student internships have been funded by the National Science Foundation (EPSCoR, REU & Geosciences), Hopa Mountain and the American Indian College Fund. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors; it has not been formally reviewed by any of the funders and does not necessarily represent the official views of NIH or the EPA. The EPA does not endorse any of the products mentioned.

Author Contributions

John T. Doyle, Larry Kindness, and James Realbird, co-Directors of the Apsaalooke Water and Wastewater Authority, carried out the water and wastewater infrastructure repairs, upgrades and replacements described in this article, and together with attorney Urban Bear Don’t Walk and others, successfully overcame many of the challenges described in this article. John T. Doyle, Larry Kindness, and Margaret J. Eggers, with others, co-founded the Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee to address Crow Tribal water quality and health disparities. Margaret J. Eggers served as Project Leader for the water quality research, with guidance from Principal Investigator Anne K. Camper. John T. Doyle outlined the challenges described in this article [54], and Margaret J. Eggers conducted the literature review and drafted the manuscript, with edits from John T. Doyle. All co-authors reviewed and approved the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The founding sponsors had no role in the conception of the commentary, in the writing of the manuscript, and/or in the decision to publish this manuscript.

References

  • 1.Balazs C.L., Ray I. The drinking water disparities framework: On the origins and persistence of inequities in exposure. Am. J. Public Health. 2014;104:603–611. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301664. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Eggers M.J., Doyle J.T., Lefthand M.J., Young S.L., Moore-Nall A.L., Kindness L., Medicine R.O., Ford T.E., Dietrich E., Parker A.E., et al. Community Engaged Cumulative Risk Assessment of Exposure to Inorganic Well Water Contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2018;15:76. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15010076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hanna-Attisha M., LaChance J., Sadler R.C., Schnepp A.C. Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the Flint drinking water crisis: A spatial analysis of risk and public health response. Am. J. Public Health. 2016;106:283–290. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2015.303003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lewis J., Gonzales M., Burnette C., Benally M., Seanez P., Shuey C., Nez H., Nez C., Nez S. Environmental Exposures to Metals in Native Communities and Implications for Child Development: Basis for the Navajo Birth Cohort Study. J. Soc. Work Disabil. Rehabil. 2015;14:245–269. doi: 10.1080/1536710X.2015.1068261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Riggs E., Hughes J., Irvin D., Leopard K. An Overview of Clean Water Access Challenges in the United States. Global Water Challenge and the Environmental Finance Center, School of Government, University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, NC, USA: 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.US Water Alliance An Equitable Water Future: A National Briefing Paper. [(accessed on 1 February 2018)];2017 Available online: http://uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/uswa_waterequity_FINAL.pdf.
  • 7.VanderSlice J. Drinking water infrastructure and environmental disparities: Evidence and methodological considerations. Am. J. Public Health. 2011;101:S109–S114. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wilson S.M., Heaney C.D., Cooper J., Wilson O. Built environment issues in unserved and underserved African-American neighborhoods in North Carolina. Environ. Justice. 2008;1:63–72. doi: 10.1089/env.2008.0509. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Backer L.C., Tosta N. Unregulated Drinking Dater Initiative for environmental surveillance and public health. J. Environ. Health. 2011;73:31–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Balazs C., Morello-Frosch R., Hubbard A., Ray I. Social disparities in nitrate-contaminated drinking water in California’s San Joaquin Valley. Environ. Health Perspect. 2011;119:1272–1278. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1002878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Balazs C.L., Morello-Frosch R., Hubbard A.E., Ray I. Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California’s San Joaquin Valley: A cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems. Environ. Health. 2012;11:84. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Bischoff W.E., Weir M., Summers P., Haiying C., Quandt S.A., Liebman A.K., Arcury T.A. The quality of drinking water in North Carolina farmworker camps. Am. J. Public Health. 2012;102:e49–e54. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300738. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Indian Health Service (IHS) Health and Environmental Impacts of Uranium Contamination in the Navajo Nation: Five Year Plan. [(accessed on 8 April 2014)];2008 Available online: http://www.epa.gov/region9/superfund/navajo-nation/pdf/NN-5-Year-Plan-June-12.pdf.
  • 14.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Keeping Water Safe for the Navajo Nation. [(accessed on 31 March 2014)];2008 Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/about/pdf/resources/socdc2008.pdf.
  • 15.DeSimone L.A. Quality of Water from Domestic Wells in Principal Aquifers of the United States, 1991–2004. U.S. Geological Survey; Northborough, MA, USA: 2009. p. 139. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5227. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Bear Don’t Walk U.J., Realbird J., Eggers M.J., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee. Ford T.E., Camper A.K. Addressing disparities in safe drinking water access on the Crow Reservation, Montana; Proceedings of the Environmental Health Disparities and Environmental Justice Meeting; Raleigh, NC, USA. 29–31 July 2013; p. 28. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Firestone L., Kaswan A., Meraz S. Environmental justice: Access to clean drinking water. Hast. Law J. 2006;57:1367–1386. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Focazio M.J., Tipton D., Shapiro S.D., Geiger L.H. The chemical quality of self-supplied domestic well water in the United States. Groundw. Monit. Remediat. 2006;26:92–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6592.2006.00089.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ford T.E., Rupp G., Butterfield P., Camper A. Protecting Public Health in Small Water Systems: Report of an International Colloquium. Montana Water Center; Bozeman, MT, USA: 2005. p. 52. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Goss M.J., Barry D.A.J., Rudolph D.L. Contamination in Ontario farmstead domestic wells and its association with agriculture: 1. Results from drinking water wells. J. Contam. Hydrol. 1997;32:267–293. doi: 10.1016/S0169-7722(98)00054-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Heaney C., Wilson S.M., Wilson O., Cooper J. Use of community-owned and managed research to assess the vulnerability of water and sewer services in marginalized and underserved environmental justice communities. J. Environ. Health. 2011;74:8–17. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hexemer A.M., Pintar K., Bird T.M., Zentner S.E., Garcia H.P., Pollari F. An investigation of bacteriological and chemical water quality and the barriers to private well water sampling in a Southwestern Ontario community. J. Water Health. 2008;6:521–525. doi: 10.2166/wh.2008.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hoover J.H., Gonzales M., Shuey C., Barney Y., Lewis J. Elevated arsenic and uranium concentrations in unregulated water sources on the Navajo Nation, USA. Expo. Health. 2017;9:113–124. doi: 10.1007/s12403-016-0226-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Levin R.B., Epstein P.R., Ford T.E., Harrington W., Olson E., Reichard E.G. U.S. drinking water challenges in the twenty-first century. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002;110:43–52. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110s143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Maathuis H. Review and Comparison of Regional Groundwater Quality Data in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan Research Council; Saskatoon, SK, Canada: 2000. p. 37. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lewis L., Sabogal R.I., Bell C. Survey of unregulated drinking water sources on the Navajo Nation; Proceedings of the American Public Health Association 137th Annual Meeting and Exposition on Water and Public Health; Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7–11 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Olmstead S.M. Thirsty colonias: Rate regulation and the provision of water service. Land Econ. 2004;80:136–150. doi: 10.2307/3147149. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Parcher J.W., Humberson D.G. CHIPS: A New Way to Monitor Colonias along the United States–Mexico Border. USGS Enterprise Publishing Network; Rolla, MO, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Paul M.P., Rigrod P., Wingate S., Borsuk M.E. A community-driven intervention in Tuftonboro, New Hampshire, succeeds in altering water testing behavior. J. Environ. Health. 2015;78:30–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Robertson W., Neil D. Microbiological quality of drinking water in Canada: An overview of the Health Canada programme. In: Mahmound M., Everdingen R., editors. An Earth Odyssey, Proceedings of the 54th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Calgary, AB, Canada, 16–19 September 2001. Bitech; Richmond, BC, Canada: 2001. pp. 45–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rogan W.J., Brady M.T. The Committee on Environmental Health and the Committee on Infectious Diseases. American Academy of Pediatrics. Drinking water from private wells and risks to children. Pediatrics. 2009;123:e1123–e1137. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-0752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Summers R.J. Albert a Well Water Survey. A Report Prepared for Alberta Environment. University of Alberta; Edmonton, AB, Canada: 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . U.S. Mexico Border Needs Assessment and Support Project. USDA; EAP; Washington, DC, USA: 2014. Phase 1 Scoping Assessment Report. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency How EPA Regulates Drinking Water Contaminants. [(accessed on 18 May 2017)];2017 Available online: https://www.epa.gov/dwregdev/how-epa-regulates-drinking-water-contaminants#make.
  • 35.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Infrastructure Task Force to Improve Access to Safe Drinking Water and Basic Sanitation in Indian Country. [(accessed on 28 February 2014)];2013 Available online: http://www.epa.gov/tribal/trprograms/infra-water.htm.
  • 36.Villanueava C.M., Kogevina M., Cordier S., Templeton M.R., Vermeulen R., Nuckols J.R., Nieuwenhuijsen M.J., Levallois P. Assessing exposure and health consequences of chemicals in drinking water: Current state of knowledge and research needs. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014;122:213–221. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1206229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Walker M., Shaw W.D., Benson M. Arsenic consumption and health risk perceptions in a rural western U.S. area. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006;42:1363–1370. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb05618.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wilson S.M., Heaney C.D., Wilson O. Governance structures and the lack of basic amenities: Can community engagement be effectively used to address environmental injustice in underserved black communities. Environ. Justice. 2010;3:125–133. doi: 10.1089/env.2010.0014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Montana State Governor’s Office of Indian Affairs Crow Nation. [(accessed on 6 June 2017)];2013 Available online: https://tribalnations.mt.gov/crow.
  • 40.American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates. American Community Survey Estimates; Crow Agency, MT, USA: [(accessed on 8 March 2018)]. 2012–2016. Available online: https://www.census.gov/acs/www/data/data-tables-and-tools/data-profiles/2016/ [Google Scholar]
  • 41.U.S. Census Bureau Montana Locations by per Capita Income. [(accessed on 2 April 2014)];2010 Available online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montana_locations_by_per_capita_income.
  • 42.DuFault R. In another country: Indian County Environmental Hazard Assessment Training Project Seeks IH Instructors and Mentors. [(accessed on 4 November 2017)];:43–47. Synergist 2005. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/6046645/Volunteering_for_ICEHAP.
  • 43.American Indian Higher Education Consortium Indian Country Environmental Hazard Assessment Program: An Online Training Program Developed for Indigenous People and Government Employees. [(accessed on 4 November 2017)];2015 Available online: http://www.aihec.org/what-we-do/docs/announce/2015_ICHAP.pdf.
  • 44.Cummins C., Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Lefthand M.J., Bear Don’t Walk U.J., Bends A., Broadaway S.C., Camper A.K., Fitch R., Ford T.E., et al. Community-based participatory research in Indian Country: Improving health through water quality research and awareness. Fam. Community Health. 2010;33:166–174. doi: 10.1097/FCH.0b013e3181e4bcd8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cummins C., Doyle J., Kindness L., Young S., Ford T., Eggers M. Community Based Risk Assessment of Exposure to Contaminants via Water Sources on the Crow Reservation in Montana. Panel Presentation.; Proceedings of the National Tribal Science Forum; Traverse City, MI, USA. 6–10 June 2010; [(accessed on 12 August 2010)]. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/osp/tribes/NatForum10/ntsf10_3t_Ford.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Broadaway S.C. Master’s Thesis. Montana State University; Bozeman, MT, USA: 2013. Detection of Cryptosporidium Using Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization and Solid Phase Laser Cytometry. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Broadaway S.C., Eggers M.J., Hamner S., Parker A., Camper A.K., Pyle B.H. Detection of Cryptosporidium using Fluorescent in situ Hybridization and Solid Phase Laser Cytometry. Unpublished manuscript. Unpublished manuscript.
  • 48.Cummins C., Ford T., Doyle J., Kindness L., Bear Don’t Walk U., Eggers M. Community Based Risk Assessment of Exposure to Contaminants via Water Sources on the Crow Reservation in Montana; Proceedings of the EPA Webinar Series: Promoting Environmental Health in Native American Communities; Washington, DC, USA. 18 November 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Doyle J., Eggers M.J., LaFrance J., Lefthand M.J., Martin C., Three Irons E., Young S.L. Aftermath of Extreme Events for Tribal Elders. Partnership for Environmental Public Health, NIEHS, NIH Webinar: Extreme Events, Environmental Health, and the Elderly. [(accessed on 20 January 2018)];2017 Sep 15; Available online: https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/peph/webinars/elderly/aftermath_of_extreme_events_for_tribal_elders_508.pdf.
  • 50.Doyle J.T., Eggers M.J., Lefthand M.J., Young S.L., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee. Martin C., Three Irons E., Moore Nall A., Hoover J., Bear Below J., et al. Session: Community engagement in environmental science: Building links with traditional knowledge and indigenous values. Platform presentation: Community engaged cumulative risk assessment of exposure to inorganic well water contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana; Proceedings of the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry North America 38th Annual Meeting; Minneapolis, MN, USA. 12–16 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Doyle J.T., Eggers M.J., Martin C. Session: Tribal perspectives on water management topics and collaborative engagement approaches; Proceedings of the Taking Back the Responsibility to Protect Our Water, University Council on Water Resources Conference: Water in a Changing Environment; Fort Collins, CO, USA. 13–15 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Doyle J.T., Eggers M.J., Martin C., Three Irons E., Young S.L., Lefthand M.J., Keil D., Hoover J., LaFrance J., Camper A.K. Session: Native American Knowledge Systems: Sovereign Rights, Protections and Protocols. Platform presentation: Communicating Home Well Water Quality Results to Families; Proceedings of the International Society of Exposure Science: Integrating Exposure Science Across Diverse Communities; Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. 15–19 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Bear Don’t Walk U.J., Realbird J., Eggers M.J., Bends A.L., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee. Camper A.K. For as long as the grass shall grow and the rivers shall flow: Clean water, a sovereign responsibility. Plenary talk; Proceedings of the National Congress of American Indians Tribal Leader/Scholar Forum; Lincoln, NE, USA. 19 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Bear Don’t Walk U.J., Realbird J., Eggers M.J., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee. Ford T.E., Camper A.K. Reducing Tribal Health Disparities through Solving Water Infrastructure Challenges; Proceedings of the NIH, NIGMS Fourth Biennial National IDeA Symposium of Biomedical Research Excellence (NISBRE); Washington, DC, USA. 25–27 June 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Doyle J.T., Martin C., LaFrance J., Eggers M.J., Young S., Lefthand M., Camper A.K., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee Platform presentation: Integrating TEK and Climate Change Science to Understand Changes in Water Resources and Resulting Impacts on Tribal Health; Proceedings of the 1st Annual National Native Health Research Training Conference; Denver, CO, USA. 18–19 September 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Doyle J.T., Redsteer M.H., Eggers M.J. Exploring effects of climate change on Northern Plains American Indian health. Clim. Chang. 2013;120:643–655. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0799-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Eggers M.J. Ph.D. Thesis. Montana State University; Bozeman, MT, USA: 2014. Community Based Risk Assessment of Exposure to Waterborne Contaminants on the Crow Reservation, Montana. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Eggers M.J. Community-Based Risk Assessment of Exposure to Waterborne Contaminants, Crow Reservation, Montana; Proceedings of the Environmental Health Disparities and Environmental Justice Meeting; Raleigh, NC, USA. 29–31 July 2013; pp. 37–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Eggers M.J., Moore-Nall A.L., Doyle J.T., Lefthand M.J., Young S.L., Bends A.L., Crow Environmental Health Steering Committee. Camper A.K. Potential health risks from uranium in home well water: An investigation by the Apsaalooke (Crow) tribal research group. Geosciences. 2015;5:67–94. doi: 10.3390/geosciences5010067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Ford T.E., Eggers M.J., Old Coyote T.J., Good Luck B., Felicia D.L., Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Leider A., Moore-Nall A., Dietrich E., et al. Comprehensive community-based risk assessment of exposure to water-borne contaminants on the Crow Reservation. EPA Tribal Environmental Health Research Program Webinar. [(accessed on 12 December 2012)];2012 Oct 17; Available online: http://epa.gov/ncer/tribalresearch/multimedia/index.html#oct172012-100.
  • 61.Hamner S., Broadaway S.C., Berg E., Stettner S., Pyle B.H., Big Man N., Old Elk J., Eggers M.J., Doyle J., Kindness L., et al. Detection and source tracking of Escherichia coli, harboring intimin and Shiga toxin genes, isolated from the Little Bighorn River, Montana. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2013;24:341–362. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2013.835030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lefthand M.J., Eggers M.J., Old Coyote T.J., Doyle J.T., Kindness L., Bear Don’t Walk U.J., Young S.L., Bends A.L., Good Luck B., Stewart R., et al. Holistic community-based risk assessment of exposure to contaminants via water sources; Proceedings of the American Public Health Association Conference; San Francisco, CA, USA. 27–31 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Martin C., Simonds V., Lefthand M.L., Doyle J.T., Eggers M.J., Young S. Perceptions of safe water, Crow Water Quality Project; Proceedings of the 2017 UCOWR/NIWR Annual Conference “Water in a Changing Environment”; Fort Collins, CO, USA. 13–15 June 2017; p. 129. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.McOliver C., Camper A.K., Doyle J.T., Eggers M.J., Ford T.E., Lila M.A., Berner J., Campbell L., Donatuto J. Community-based research as a mechanism to reduce environmental health disparities in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2015;12:4076–4100. doi: 10.3390/ijerph120404076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Richards C.L., Broadaway S.C., Eggers M.J., Doyle J.T., Pyle B.H., Camper A.K., Ford T.E. Detection of pathogenic and non-pathogenic bacteria in drinking water and associated biofilms on the Crow Reservation, Montana, USA. Microb. Ecol. 2015 doi: 10.1007/s00248-015-0595-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Temte J., Doyle J., Eggers M., Terry S., Bennon B. Panel presentation: Merging Science and Technology with Culture and Tradition; Proceedings of the Water and Health Conference, University of North Carolina; Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 16–20 October 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Israel B.A., Eng E., Schulz A.J., Parker E.A. Methods in Community-Based Participatory Research for Health. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA, USA: 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Minkler M., Wallerstein N. Community-Based Participatory Research for Health: From Process to Outcomes. Jossey-Bass; San Francisco, CA, USA: 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Nittany Grantworks, Livingston, MT, USA. [(accessed on 8 March 2018)]; Available online: www.nittanygrantworks.com.
  • 70.Management Concepts Inc. Managing Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements for Recipients. [(accessed on 6 February 2018)]; Available online: https://www.managementconcepts.com/Course/id/2062.
  • 71.Hughes J. (Environmental Finance Center, School of Government at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA). Personal communication. 2017.
  • 72.Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior Frequently Asked Questions. [(accessed on 8 March 2018)]; Available online: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions.
  • 73.Getches D.H., Wilkinson C.F., Williams R.A., Jr., Fletcher M.L.M. Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law. 6th ed. West Publishing Company; St. Paul, MN, USA: 2005. p. 244. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.History This Day in History, 8 February 1887: Cleveland Signs Devastating Dawes Act into Law. [(accessed on 8 March 2018)]; Available online: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cleveland-signs-devastating-dawes-act-into-law.
  • 75.Shoemaker J.A. Like snow in the spring time: Allotment, Fractionation, and the Indian land tenure problem. Wis. Law Rev. 2003;729:61. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Anderson T.L., Lueck D. Land tenure and agricultural productivity on Indian reservations. J. Law Econ. 1992;35:427–454. doi: 10.1086/467261. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Goetting M.A., Ruppel K. Planning for the Passing of Reservation Lands to Future Generations. [(accessed on 8 March 2018)];2009 Fact Sheet #2: Fractionation: Inheriting Undivided Interests. Available online: http://www.montana.edu/indianland/documents/factsheets/factsheet2.pdf.
  • 78.McCulley K.L. The American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004: The Death of Fractionation or Individual Native American Property Interests and Tribal Customs? American Indian Law Review, University of Oklahoma College of Law. [(accessed on 8 March 2018)];Volume 30:401–422. 2005/2006. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070764. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Eggers W.J., III (Attorney at Law and Crow Tribal Member, Bozeman, MT, USA). Personal communication. 2018.
  • 80.Most Frequently Asked Questions about TERO Council for Tribal Employment Rights. [(accessed on 10 March 2018)]; Available online: http://www.councilfortribalemploymentrights.org/wp/tero-faq/
  • 81.Montana Code Annotated. 90-6-209. Limitations on Grants. [(accessed on 10 March 2018)]; Available online: http://leg.mt.gov/bills/mca/title_0900/chapter_0060/part_0020/section_0090/0900-0060-0020-0090.html.
  • 82.Legislative Branch of the Crow Tribal Government, Joint Action Resolution 17-17 Resolution approving the Crow Tribe’s Limited Waiver of Sovereignty in the Montana Department of Commerce TSEP contract for AWWWA Phase 3C. [(accessed on 10 March 2018)];2017 Available online: http://www.ctlb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JAR-17-17-Limited-Waiver-in-the-Montana-Department-of-Commerce-TSEP-Contract-for-AWWWA-Phase-3C.pdf.
  • 83.Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water & Wastewater Operator Certification Program. [(accessed on 10 March 2018)]; Available online: http://deq.mt.gov/Water/WQINFO/opcert.

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES