Maine
Underfunded and understaffed, Maine’s dam agency does what it can to keep the aging infrastructure safe
Nearly a decade after a company abandoned the paper mill that once shaped Bucksport’s economy, its successor is in the process of abandoning three dams that shape the surrounding watershed.
On Thursday night, scores of people who rely on the dam’s reservoirs for drinking water and waterfront property value packed into the former mill’s campus, seizing their only opportunity to confront representatives of the dams’ owner, AIM Development USA.
One by one, attendees peppered company officials with questions about what would happen to the homes huddled around the dams’ reservoirs and those located downstream, what structural condition the dams are in and what risks will remain when they’re abandoned.
“If the worst-case scenario… is that you release the water because we have no other option, do we have a (projection) of what will happen?” asked a resident on Toddy Pond whose family has lived there since the 1930s. “Should I get scuba gear for my house, or should I get sun-tanning lotion, because it will be a desert?”
For officials from Bucksport, Orland, Surry and the local water utility, Thursday marked the first time meeting with AIM in-person since the company announced its intention to abandon the dams this summer. They demanded clarity on how AIM would honor its obligation, as stated in property deeds, to maintain a reservoir that serves as Bucksport’s drinking water supply and cools a gas-fired power plant. If no entity or state agency claims the dams, state law allows AIM to open their flood gates and release water from the reservoirs in a minimally impactful way, leaving mudflats and the structures behind.
“Our town has sought information from the petitioners,” said Bucksport town manager Susan Lessard, yet “rather than receive information, we have experienced a process characterized by chaos and confusion.”
Representatives from AIM met them with silence, promising to answer the questions online in the next few weeks.
As Maine’s dams age and maintenance costs mount, the outcome of the debate could provide a playbook for others to follow.
Significant challenges
Thirteen years after a Monitor investigation revealed that Maine was behind on inspecting the state’s most hazardous dams, Maine’s dam safety program, like dozens of others across the country, remains understaffed and underfunded, even in the face of a changing climate and more intense storms.
Although the state agency tasked with ensuring the safety of more than 500 dams is now up-to-date with inspections, the program has yet to institute modern protocols.
The office lacks digitized records of emergency procedures that residents should follow if a local dam fails, as well as digital inundation maps outlining flooding threats.
Last year the program had to bring an engineer out of retirement to inspect the hundreds of dams under the state’s jurisdiction because applications for the permanent lead engineer were scant, despite reclassifying the position numerous times to higher pay scales. The office only recently hired an assistant engineer to assist with inspections.
“Maine’s dam infrastructure is aging, and the Dam Safety Program is currently understaffed, facing significant challenges with implementing dam risk reduction,” wrote the authors of Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Several of the dams overseen by the program are both “high” risk — meaning people could die if they fail – and in “unsatisfactory” condition — the worst possible grade. The dam safety program rarely follows up on its repair recommendations, according to a 2023 report, and does not take enforcement actions when dam owners disobey, meaning the program does not compel private dam owners to maintain even the most dilapidated, dangerous dams.
As Maine dams reach the end of their useful lives and maintenance bills mount, some dam owners are abdicating upkeep responsibilities or forfeiting ownership of their dams altogether — leaving communities like Bucksport and Orland at risk of inheriting these costly burdens.
What’s at risk
At an average age of more than 100, the 672 regulated dams on Maine rivers, streams, lakes and ponds are far from paragons of modern infrastructure.
Of the 590 Maine dams tracked in a federal dam database, 62 are considered to be in poor condition and have some sort of safety deficiency, while 15 are deemed unsatisfactory and require more immediate maintenance.
Ten of the fifteen unsatisfactory dams are also labeled high hazard, meaning that dams from Boothbay Harbor to Fort Fairfield with immediate safety defects could put the lives of downstream residents at risk if they fail.
Nine poor condition dams, meanwhile, have the same high hazard rating but are on average more than two decades older than the unsatisfactory dams.
It’s up to the state dam safety program to guide owners’ dams into compliance, but regulators say that can be difficult because they lack capacity for enforcement.
Maine’s agency has two engineers to oversee the state-regulated dams, which include 15 of the 39 high hazard dams. The federal agency tasked with overseeing large hydropower dams, meanwhile, has five engineers to inspect the 34 high hazard dams under its purview.
The behemoth frozen potato purveyor McCain Foods owns a high hazard, poor condition dam that forms Christina Reservoir near Fort Fairfield and another high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dam at Lake Josephine just a mile away.
The town of Fort Fairfield owns a pair of high hazard, unsatisfactory condition dams at Bryant Pond and upstream on Libby Brook that are intended to reduce flood risk, but are developing risks of their own. (The town disputed the dam safety program’s assessment, saying their risks are lower and the dams are regularly maintained).
Outside of this cluster in Fort Fairfield, Maine’s 75 high hazard dams and 85 significant hazard dams (which may not harm human life if they fail, but will cause economic and environmental damage) are scattered across the state.
It’s up to the Maine dam safety program’s lead inspector and assistant to assess 160 high and significant hazard dams once every six years and the remaining 363 dams under state jurisdiction once every 12 years, all while maintaining emergency plans.
The program has been able to do just that, according to a 2023 assessment conducted by the Association of State Dam Safety Officials. All Maine dams have been inspected within their deadlines and have corresponding emergency plans; this means Maine has one of the highest compliance rates in the country.
The authors of the assessment commended Maine dam safety employees for their hard work to “keep the program’s head above water” but painted a grim picture of the program’s ability to enforce safety standards.
“Identifying deficiencies through periodic inspection is crucial, but ultimately does nothing for public safety if dams are not repaired and completed in an acceptable manner,” the authors wrote.
Low funding and chronic understaffing have long plagued Maine’s dam safety program, symptoms of its sole reliance on federal grants for the program’s operating costs.
The program does not receive any direct appropriations from the state legislature and does not collect any fees. In 2021, it received a meager $67,241 through its primary federal grant — at least $200,000 less than it needed, according to an internal report, and the program had to borrow from funds elsewhere.
Though the dam safety program has the authority under state law to enforce compliance, none of that funding has gone to enforcement or compliance measures. The program lacks written policies describing what enforcement would even look like.
Its scant budget has also made it nearly impossible to hire a permanent lead dam inspector, according to Steven Mallory, the head of the dam safety program and the director of operations and response for the Maine Emergency Management Agency.
One year ago, Mallory, who is not an engineer, was facing a perilous situation after the lead dam inspector left for another job and no viable candidates applied to replace him. The program was narrowly rescued when retired inspector Tony Fletcher agreed to return on an interim basis.
Mallory has increased the pay scale of the job several times since then but has had only two candidates apply over the three years, likely because engineers can find far more lucrative positions elsewhere.
With these constraints, the dam safety program is constantly playing catch-up, failing to take more proactive steps to enforce safety standards, guide dam owners through necessary upkeep or removal and modernize risk mapping and dam databases, according to the assessment.
Recent flooding and near misses with dam failure elsewhere in the United States have shown how costly such shortfalls can be.
Emergency officials sounded this alarm to a state commission on infrastructure and climate change resilience last week.
“We’ve seen in other states this year issues where dams have failed and flooded communities,” said Darren Woods, director of Aroostook County’s Emergency Management Agency. “We certainly don’t want to see that happen here in Maine.”
Awaiting disaster
Hazard classifications and condition assessments don’t necessarily paint the full picture of a dam’s corresponding risk, according to Mallory.
The structures may be designed to withstand a 500-year flood and perform well when one hits, but the floodwaters still have to go somewhere.
In the case of the town-owned dam in the heart of Dover-Foxcroft, that somewhere is into a crucial state thruway and the basement of a nearby apartment complex. Last December, when the Piscataquis River swelled behind the dam’s wall, it caused water damage and complicated access to the southern part of the state.
“Most of our dams are in really good shape where they can handle excess water. However, with all the flooding and the rain, it just exasperates that problem,” Mallory told The Maine Monitor. “It’s just too much water and it’s gotta go somewhere.”
Human-caused climate change has increased both the frequency and severity of floods in Maine, spurred by intense downpours concentrated in shorter and shorter periods.
A study published last month in the scientific journal Nature found that it’s these rapid downpours — like the one that ripped through central and western Maine in December 2023 — preceded by multiple days of precipitation that caused most dam failures between 2000 and 2021.
Its authors concluded that current engineering standards for dam flood resilience assume conservative climate conditions, and they called for officials to revisit these standards and consider more severe weather patterns.
Like most other state dam agencies, Maine’s program follows model state dam regulations distributed by the ASDSO and federal government. Those standards have not yet incorporated climate change’s effects into their guidance, according to Mallory, though an ASDSO official said the organization has been advocating that state dam programs adopt updated models for extreme precipitation.
Back in Maine, meanwhile, regulations already consider worst-case flooding scenarios for state-regulated dams.
Mallory got a taste of what could be in store for Maine dams in the early morning hours of December 19, 2023, when a catastrophic combination of rain and snowmelt engorged the Kennebec River.
Mallory’s fears lay downstream, where a pair of high hazard dams are nestled on the Cobbosseecontee Stream right before it meets the Kennebec River in the heart of downtown Gardiner.
Both dams are in adequate condition, but Mallory was concerned nonetheless. He rushed to visit the dams, and was relieved to find them effectively passing the torrent of floodwater.
Despite the fears that nagged him that day, Mallory said he is confident in Maine’s dams. Yet he can’t discount the increasing impact climate change will have on their infrastructure.
While climate change may not be incorporated into the way Maine inspects dams and helps draft emergency plans, the state is preparing Maine dams for climate change in other ways.
Maine’s 2023 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, for example, calls for tapping into a federal grant program for rehabilitating and removing high hazard dams. The mitigation plan’s local risk reduction recommendations show a variety of maintenance needs for municipally-owned, high hazard dams that have been deferred due to a lack of funds, like a $200,000 project to fortify a dam in Durham that has been patched but “needs to be strengthened and repaired to prevent failure.”
In July 2023, nearby Vermont experienced firsthand the disastrous outcomes that deferred dam maintenance can lead to. After record downpours flooded valleys up the state’s mountainous spine, five dams failed and more than 50 were damaged or overtopped by floodwater, according to Ben Green, head of the Vermont dam safety program.
The dams that failed were all in poor condition and municipally or privately owned, but luckily, Green said, were fairly small, earthen embankments and didn’t result in any downstream damage. That was due in part to the intense flooding that had already wrecked the dams’ watersheds, meaning even the two significant hazard dams that failed did not cause any separate, discernible damage.
“So that was fortunate, I guess,” Green said.
There were close calls elsewhere. On July 11, 2023, murky brown floodwater in the Wrightsville Reservoir scaled the side of a state-owned dam right outside of Montpelier, coming within one foot of overtopping its spillway and bursting down into the already flood-ravaged state capital.
Green said his office stationed personnel at the state-owned dams all night for the first few days after the flood, closely monitoring the dams for any signs of impending failure.
Though failures of such magnitude have been rare in Maine, the state has its fair share of hazardous dams and in 2005 saw a state-owned dam fail near Newcastle, releasing debris from a man-made lake that cost $300,000 to clean up.
Part of the concern surrounding the abandonment of the Bucksport-area dams comes from the high hazard potential and poor condition of the dam on Silver Lake. If breached, its floodwaters could reach 70 homes and endanger hundreds of lives downstream in Bucksport, according to a 2021 inspection from Fletcher, the dam safety program engineer.
Fletcher also described significant deficiencies with the dam, including a deteriorating concrete structure and leakages developing in its left and right sides. He recommended that AIM create an operation and maintenance plan to track the dam’s leakages and other issues, then report back to the dam safety program twice a year.
But the dam safety program never followed up with AIM after that, according to Mallory, the dam safety program’s director. The program struggles to inspect all the hazardous dams it is obligated to and couldn’t spare sending an engineer to follow-up on a dam that had already been inspected before its deadline, Mallory told The Monitor Friday after attending AIM’s public hearing.
“There’s a lot of steps that we could do if I had another engineer,” Mallory said. “I would have sent an engineer down there to reinspect those dams. I don’t have that. I just don’t have those assets. I have Tony, and we’re trying.”
Building resilience
After going four years without tapping into the federal grant that funds the design process for rehabilitating or removing high hazard dams, Maine secured a $2.5 million award this fall. Outside experts and the program’s assistant dam inspector have also been working to update inundation maps with GIS and digitize dam emergency action plans, according to Mallory.
And even without the digitization of the emergency plans, Mallory is confident in MEMA’s ability to adequately warn communities through alerts similar to those issued by the National Weather Service for flash floods.
Compared to what the state’s hazard mitigation plan and the ASDSO report call for, however, these modest gains are only a sliver of what Maine needs to modernize its dam safety program and foster resilience to climate change. One internal estimate from MEMA recommended a $900,000 annual budget for the dam program, enough funding for two engineers, two assistant engineers and administrative staff.
States in similar situations have managed to overcome the same obstacles, however. When Green started at Vermont’s dam safety program in 2017, he was one of two engineers responsible for inspecting hundreds of dams and operating the 13 state-owned dams.
The dam safety program’s legal authority was so weak that Green couldn’t even set foot on a private dam owner’s land without their permission, let alone inspect dams and compel owners to make necessary repairs.
Then, in 2018, the Vermont legislature granted the program rulemaking authority, allowing dam regulators to bring their program up to date with federal standards and take enforcement action when dam owners fail to maintain their dams.
Vermont’s updates were gradual and limited to policy at first, but as time went on the program added a few more staff members through grant funding, then the July 2023 floods fast-tracked the program.
“Within a few years we were able to pull together the two additional staff, which made everything seem possible,” Green said. “The flood kept us moving uphill.”
Green now has plans for the program to expand to almost a dozen staff members and is leading a massive inventory effort to record the location, condition and owners of the dams that have been able to skirt regulation, then compel the owners to make required improvements.
“Dams are forgotten infrastructure, and I think that’s obviously changing with all the highlights that dams have had in the last years,” Green said. “It’s something that we in the dam safety community can’t let people forget.”
Back in Maine, Mallory sees the abandonment of the Bucksport dams as an example of the dire straits that his dam safety program is in and a call for action to turn it around.
After the hearing, Mallory lingered behind and chatted with state legislators, explaining how part of these complications might have been avoided if Maine adopted the changes recommended in the peer review. With adequate staff, funding and policies, the program could have mandated compliance from AIM and ensured the dams’ safety before they were abandoned.
“I think this is a guinea pig,” Mallory said. “This is the first abandonment ever. I’m hoping that with the attention on this, the legislators will (consider the recommendations) that we submitted and that will help future problems.”
This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor, a nonprofit civic news organization. To get regular coverage from the Monitor, sign up for a free Monitor newsletter here.
Maine
Who is raising the most money in the Maine governor’s race?
(Joe Phelan/Staff Photographer)
Candidates vying to become Maine’s next governor have until midnight Tuesday to file campaign finance reports for the first quarter of the year.
The reports will show who is best positioned to control the message in the final month-plus until the primaries. But fundraising success doesn’t always guarantee a win at the ballot box.
The reports come as a growing number of leading candidates are taking to the airwaves a head of the June 9 primaries. Five Democrats and seven Republicans are vying to replace Gov. Janet Mills, who is term limited.
As of Tuesday, Republican Jonathan Bush topped all candidates in broadcast, cable and digital advertising, having booked nearly $1.5 million in ads through the primary, the political spending tracker AdImpact said.
But Republican Garrett Mason is benefitting from about $3 million in spending by Restoration of America PAC, which is running ads targeting Gov. Janet Mills and tying Mason to President Donald Trump.
Other Republican candidates running ads are Bobby Charles ($63,000), Owen McCarthy ($43,660) and Ben Midgely ($55,000.)
Hannah Pingree tops the Democratic slate with about $564,000 in ad spending, followed by Nirav Shah ($493,000), Shenna Bellows ($462,700) and Angus King III ($299,000.)
As of Tuesday afternoon, fundraising totals were only trickling in. Public access to those reports was hampered because the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices is building a new website, and glitches made some reports unviewable.
This story will be updated when more reports are filed. As of Tuesday afternoon:
- Republican Jonathan Bush reported raising about $845,000 in the first quarter, but 60% of that, $500,000, was a personal loan to his own campaign. His totals were not yet available through the new website, but his quarterly fundraising and spending was provided by ethics staff.
- Republican Robert Wessels was the only other active candidate that had filed. He raised nearly $11,600 for the quarter and has about $13,540 in cash.
This is a developing story.
Maine
Obituary: Anne Theresa Tarling
Anne Theresa Tarling
SANFORD – Anne Theresa Tarling, 74, of Sanford, Maine passed away peacefully at home on April 23, 2026, surrounded by her loving family. While our hearts are broken, we find comfort in knowing she lived a full and beautiful life rooted in love, creativity, and devotion to the people who meant the most to her.
Anne was born on April 3, 1952, in Portland, Maine, to the late Joseph and Blanche Morin. She grew up in Portland and graduated from Deering High School in 1970.
In 1980, Anne married the love of her life, Ernest Tarling. Together they built a life centered on family, laughter, and partnership. Their 45 years of marriage were filled with shared memories and a deep commitment to one another and to their family.
Anne was a talented self-taught artist who found great joy in painting and sharing her creativity with others. She proudly exhibited her work at local art shows and specialty shops, and her paintings found their way into homes near and far. Her art brought beauty and comfort to many and will continue to remind us of her for years to come.
She also enjoyed gardening, sailing the coast of Maine, and hosting family gatherings. She was known for her famous chocolate chip cookies and for never missing a birthday or special occasion.
Being a devoted Nana brought her great joy, and she cherished time spent with her family above all else.
In addition to her parents, Anne was preceded in death by her brother, Stephen Morin; her sister, Julie Pochebit, her brother-in-law, Daniel Desmond; nieces Elizabeth McKee and Alison Pochebit.
She is survived by her brother, Paul (Sue Ellen) Morin, two sisters, Cheryl Desmond and Celine (Stephen) Pochebit; her husband of 45 years, Ernest Tarling; her son, Greg (Karen) Flagg, her four daughters, Jennifer Copper, Rebecca (Frank) Zavadil, Stefenie (Matthew) Burdick, and Kendra (Justin) Dowling; her 11 grandchildren, Cody, Matthew, Jackson, Gracey, Lucas, Quinn, Beau, Shea, Ellie, Will, and Stevie; a large extended family, including many loving nieces and nephews; and her longtime best friend, Sandy Hobbs.
A funeral service will be held Saturday, May 2, at 11 a.m. at St. Martha Church, 30 Portland Road, Kennebunk, Maine, followed by a celebration of life at 12:30 p.m. at For the Love of Food + Drink at Saltwater Farm, 411 Post Road, Wells, Maine.
To share a memory or leave a message of condolence, please visit Anne’s Book of Memories Page at http://www.bibberfuneral.com.
Arrangements are in the care of Bibber Memorial Chapel, 67 Summer Street, Kennebunk, ME 04043.
Maine
Moldy Maine weed is being treating with radiation
Maine marijuana growers are increasingly using radiation and other methods to remove contaminants from their products, a process consumers are likely in the dark about.
Despite a state policy requiring remediated products to be labeled as such, Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy is not enforcing that rule.
In response to a complaint by a dispensary owner in late February, deputy director of operations Vern Malloch acknowledged, “we are not requiring labeling of remediated or treated product,” according to records obtained through a media request.
“We plan to issue guidance on this in the near future,” Malloch wrote.
Office of Cannabis Policy Director John Hudak also told lawmakers last year that the agency hasn’t enforced remediation labeling requirements since at least November 2024.
“The Office began receiving pushback from cannabis cultivators who did not want to label their cannabis if they ‘treated’ their cannabis with radiation or ozone prior to submitting the cannabis for mandatory testing,” Hudak wrote in testimony last year.
A spokesperson for the agency declined to answer specific questions Monday, but confirmed the agency stopped enforcing the rule after some growers raised concerns over the “misleading impact” that labeling treated cannabis has on consumers.
“Requiring label disclosure of the use of irradiation or ozone treatment implies a consumer risk that is not scientifically supported and is potentially misleading in its implication about potential harm from exposure,” Alexis Soucy, OCP’s director of media relations, wrote in an email.
Over the last couple years, several marijuana products have been subjected to recall because of high levels of mold, yeast and other contaminants. Unsafe levels of mold in cannabis can cause flu-like symptoms, including respiratory issues, sinus infections, headaches and dizziness.
But rather than tossing their product, growers can turn to a process called irradiation, often involving gamma rays or X-rays, to remove contaminants.
Supporters say it’s a safe way to reduce waste and prolong shelf lives. Mold and yeast grow naturally just about everywhere and many species are benign. Standard cannabis mold testing does not differentiate between harmful and harmless microbes.
Opponents, however, argue there isn’t enough research about remediating cannabis to say whether it’s safe or not. There is not much data on whether the various types of remediation are effective at killing microbes or are safe for consumers, most of whom don’t know about the practice.
“It’s a complex topic without many answers,” said Yasha Kahn, who co-founded MCR Labs, one of four licensed cannabis testing facilities in Maine. “Hopefully, the rescheduling can lead to more research.”
The federal government moved last week to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug. Decades-long restrictions on cannabis research will be lifted, which acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said will allow for studies into “marijuana’s safety and efficacy.”
Kahn, who operates several testing labs throughout New England, said irradiating cannabis has become increasingly prevalent in legal markets across the country and the world. It’s still debated whether irradiation works as well as it’s supposed to, he said.
‘THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW PROCESS’
There are numerous kinds of cannabis remediation, each with its own pros and cons. Growers most commonly use X-rays, gamma radiation or ozone gas to remove mold and microbes.
Radiation does not kill all the mold, yeast and other microbes present in cannabis outright, Kahn said. Certain species of mold, like harmful mycotoxins, can often survive remediation. Others can remain dormant for months following the procedure.
“Irradiation gets rid of mold’s ability to procreate, and not necessarily permanently,” he said. “You can take that same product and test it again, months from then, and there’s going to be mold growth.”
Some in the industry, like organic marijuana farmer Lizzy Hayes in Mercer, fear that having the option to remediate cannabis removes the incentive to grow clean cannabis. If you can simply use radiation to eliminate mold from harvested crops, she said, why would you put effort into growing mold-free products?
Part of the blame, according to Hayes, lies at the feet of Maine’s recreational cannabis testing regime. Unlike the state’s medical marijuana market, batches of recreational cannabis products must be tested for contaminants like mold, yeast and heavy metals before they can be put on a dispensary shelf.
But since the mold test only detects the presence of mold, not whether it’s harmful, Hayes said many growers save themselves the trouble and irradiate their cannabis by default rather than risking a failed test.
“When you have a regulatory system that incentivizes irradiation, it’s also making it so that customers don’t have access to as high quality of a product,” she said.
Some in the industry disagree. A bill was proposed last year to codify requirements around labeling treated cannabis and inspecting remediation equipment. It was ultimately defeated after many Maine cannabis growers testified in opposition to the bill.
“Radiation and ozone treatment methods are well-established, scientifically validated technologies commonly used in industries far beyond cannabis,” wrote Jacob Racioppi, owner of Goose River Cannabis in Unity. “In fact, they are standard in the food industry.”
Joel Pepin, co-founder of JAR Cannabis Company, owns and operates one of about a dozen X-ray machines in Maine’s cannabis industry. He estimated that about half of Maine’s recreational cannabis has been treated by similar methods. It would be overkill, he said, to require all of that product to be labeled over scientifically unfounded concerns.
“If we apply this same logic to other industries in Maine, then why doesn’t this bill also require dental patients to wear a shirt that says, ‘treated by X-ray’ after leaving the dental office?” Pepin testified.
Neither Racioppi nor Pepin responded to requests for an interview.
Lorri Maling, laboratory director at cannabis testing facility Nelson Analytical, seconded Pepin that remediating cannabis is “more in use now than it was a few years ago.”
While some opponents of irradiation claim the process reduces THC content and eliminates terpenes — the chemicals that give different cannabis strains unique scents and effects — Maling said there’s no data to back that up. Nor is there much data to back up many other conclusions about the effects of irradiating cannabis.
Most of the studies on the effects of irradiation have been on fruits and vegetables, she said, which have not shown any negative effects — though there’s no guarantee that any remediation method will kill all bacteria.
“This is a fairly new process for cannabis,” Maling wrote in an email. “I really cannot say that it is safe or unsafe for cannabis as there really is not enough data on this.”
-
Rhode Island17 seconds ago
RI Lottery Numbers Midday, Numbers Evening winning numbers for April 28, 2026
-
South-Carolina6 minutes agoPitching Staff, Stratis Lift The Citadel to Shutout Victory at South Carolina, 4-0
-
South Dakota12 minutes ago
SD Lottery Mega Millions, Millionaire for Life winning numbers for April 28, 2026
-
Tennessee18 minutes agoMeet the TSWA 2026 Tennessee high school all-state girls basketball teams
-
Texas24 minutes agoParents urge Texas committee to block Camp Mystic reopening after July 4 flood
-
Utah30 minutes ago
Sky wars: How a Utah company is helping America keep pace in today’s global military ‘drone race’
-
Vermont36 minutes ago
VT Lottery Mega Millions, Gimme 5 results for April 28, 2026
-
Virginia42 minutes agoSouthwest, Central Virginia Weather | 11 p.m. – April 28, 2026