Maine
Maine, USA: Waters at Risk Amid the Rise of Industrial Fish Farming
Kingfish Maine Comes to Town
In the spring of 2020, Kingfish Maine (KM)—a US subsidiary of the Norwegian company Kingfish—set out to build a $110 million on-shore fish farm in Jonesport, Maine, a small fishing town of roughly 1,245 people. KM’s representatives quickly set about embedding themselves in the community, hosting meet-and-greets at local hangouts and the town library to build support for their project.
KM representatives worked tirelessly to win over Jonesport’s most influential figures in support of building a land-based facility to raise sushi-grade fish, known as a Recirculating Aquaculture System, known as “RAS” for short. Key backers included two members of the Board of Selectmen and the individual who sold KM the 92-acre parcel where the industrial complex will be constructed.
Serious Ecological Water Problems
KM planned to build its industrial complex on 92 acres along Chandler Bay, calling it a “Recirculating Aquaculture System” (RAS)—a name that might suggest the system is fully self-contained. In reality, it is far from a closed-loop. The facility will use four massive, four-foot-diameter pipes: two extending nearly half a mile into the Chandler Bay to draw in water, and two slightly shorter pipes to return it. Altogether, the system will pump more than 28 million gallons of Chandler Bay water every day; roughly 324 gallons per second. Over six million gallons of that water will be heated to 78–80°F—bear in mind that Chandler Bay has a mean temperature of less than 60 degrees F, and barely reaches 65 degrees in mid-summer. According to a KM representative, water returning to the Chandler Bay could be up to five degrees cooler than the surrounding Bay, but calculations using basic physics (Q = mCΔT) show this is impossible.
The implications of this massive water movement are significant, but they are only the beginning. Equally concerning are the nutrients/biotoxins the system will release. The outflow is projected to dump 1,583 pounds of nitrogen and 393 pounds of phosphorus into Chandler Bay every day. These nutrients act like fertilizer, fueling faster and denser algae growth and increasing the risk of frequent, severe red tides. As algae proliferates, it blocks sunlight from reaching shallow-water plants, which need light to photosynthesize. When these plants die, their decomposition consumes oxygen in the water, creating low-oxygen zones that can suffocate fish, shellfish, and other marine life: C₆H₁₀O₅ + 6O₂ → 6CO₂ + 5H₂O
In short, what might seem like a simple discharge of water and nutrients could trigger a cascade of ecological problems, threatening Chandler Bay’s entire ecosystem. Yet, most residents—trusting the company’s apparent expertise—are unlikely to question these claims, despite the enormous stakes for the environment.
The ecological consequences would be disastrous. In shallower areas of Chandler Bay, where sunlight reaches the seafloor, eelgrass grows, providing food and shelter for young marine animals like lobsters and scallops. One can easily imagine the domino effects of excessive surface algae growth and the severe impact this would have on the Bay’s delicate ecosystem.
The Planning Board and the Unlikely Challenge
Imagine you’re a member of a small-town Planning Board. You earn $18 a month for your service. Maybe you’re a lobster fisherman, a teacher, a diesel mechanic, or a retired store owner. Most of the time, your work involves approving modest permits—garages, sheds, additions, the occasional new house with a gravel driveway. Every so often, someone wants to upgrade a work shed on the shore to tend to their lobster boat.
Then one day, someone walks into the Town Office and picks up an application to build a $110 million industrial fish farm. Are the five members of the Planning Board prepared for something so far outside their usual scope? The answer is likely no—and that’s where the trouble began.
The Jonesport Planning Board started holding weekly meetings to hear from both proponents and opponents of the Kingfish Maine (KM) project. At first, meetings were held in the small Town Office, but attendance quickly outgrew the space, forcing a move to the Jonesport-Beals High School gymnasium.
Before long, residents called for a town vote on a six-month moratorium to give the Planning Board time to strengthen local zoning ordinances. Nearly 320 people turned out to vote. The moratorium was defeated nearly two to one. Many townspeople, encouraged by local leaders, believed voting “no” meant supporting Kingfish Maine. In reality, the measure was meant to give the town breathing room to prepare—something few residents understood.
A high school student later told me her mother had voted “no” because “that’s what everyone said to do,” not realizing what the vote was actually about.
Lawyers, Loopholes, and the “Ringer”
As the meetings grew in size and tension, time limits were imposed on public comments. Lawyers representing the company, the town, and local opponents filled the room. Testimony was recorded, reviewed, and dissected.
Among the Planning Board members was an alternate—a highly educated nuclear scientist—who seemed unusually skilled at countering criticism of the project. Many wondered how this “ringer” from KM had ended up on the Board.
The dynamic between the Planning Board, the town’s attorney, and KM’s legal team began to look increasingly cozy. Opponents often felt outmatched. One example came when residents raised concerns about electrical power. KM admitted it couldn’t use existing lines because of the plant’s massive energy needs. When asked for proof of how they’d secure power, company representatives replied, “That’s not our problem; it’s the local electrical provider’s.” The Board simply accepted this answer.
Then came the question of shoreland zoning. Under the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance (SLZ), KM couldn’t place any fish farm structures within the restricted area. But KM’s attorney argued that the only building in the shoreland zone was the pump house—which, they claimed, didn’t count as part of the industrial complex. The Planning Board accepted this as well.
The Fight Over Table 15
The final showdown centered on Table 15 of Jonesport’s Land Use and Development Ordinance (LUDO)—a matrix that indicates which types of development are allowed, restricted, or prohibited. Opponents were confident: under “Industrial Buildings,” the table clearly said “NO.” By that logic, the KM installation should have been prohibited.
Earlier, KM had tried to classify itself as agricultural, arguing that fish farming was akin to farming. That effort failed. The LUDO clearly defined “industrial” as any operation involving both growing and processing—exactly what KM intended to do.
But further down Table 15 was a section labeled “Marine-Related Activities” and a subcategory for “functionally water-related uses.” Normally, Maine towns interpret ordinance conflicts in favor of the most restrictive rule—in this case, the “NO” under the section titled, Industrial Buildings. Yet KM’s lawyer and the town’s attorney agreed to disregard that principle, offering no convincing reason.
The Planning Board sided with them, ruling that the project qualified as “functionally water-related” rather than industrial.
When the final vote came, opponents were momentarily elated: the Board voted 3–2 to reject KM’s application. But the victory evaporated almost instantly. One “no” voter, under visible pressure from the Chair, changed his vote. The reversal passed, and KM’s project was approved 3–2.
A Sensible Plan
After more than four years of meetings, research, legal motions, and appeals, I began to wonder whether there might be a more balanced way to handle such cases. What if an independent consortium of professionals—lawyers, scientists, and planners with no corporate ties—reviewed large-scale development proposals before they ever reached small-town boards?
This group could identify likely points of community resistance and recommend alternative approaches, helping companies like Kingfish avoid needless conflict while ensuring that towns aren’t blindsided.
But here’s the catch: law firms profit from conflict. Appeals and lawsuits generate revenue, so there’s little incentive to simplify the process. That reality brings us to the central question:
Even in the face of a changing climate, is economic development still considered more important than environmental integrity? So far, the answer remains yes—and that is the sad, distressing truth.
Concluding Remarks
Fast forward to May 2025. The Town of Jonesport’s attorney—who ostensibly represents the town and has been accused of overstepping or sidestepping his role—sent a letter to the Planning Board proposing amendments to the LUDO to accommodate KM, citing time lost during the company’s recent court appeals. KM, of course, won all those appeals, despite numerous well-founded environmental concerns.
Opponents were stunned. The proposed changes would effectively give KM a three-year extension to secure investors and move forward with construction—despite the company’s current financial struggles.
To many, this looks less like due process and more like a quiet partnership between economic ambition and political convenience. Meanwhile, the environmental stakes remain dire: more than a ton of nitrogen and phosphorus released into Chandler Bay every day, compounded by models predicting dangerous nutrient buildup. The Bay is also home to endangered Atlantic salmon and vulnerable bird species such as the razorbill auk and purple sandpiper.
For locals who depend on the Bay—for fishing, for tourism, for identity—the situation feels less like progress and more like betrayal. And so, the question lingers: behind the curtain, whose interests are truly being served?
Richard W. Aishton is currently an independent consultant and the President of Protect Downeast. His previous assignment was for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as the Program Coordinator for the ENPI FLEG Program (Forest Law Enforcement and Governance) in six Eastern European countries and Russia. This program concentrated on rural development and resource dependency; and ecosystem management and governance, using the context of ecosystem destruction. Dr. Aishton focuses on quantifying the relationship between rural communities and their natural resource base. His skills include the application of technical science; remote sensing and use of satellite and aerial images; rural energy development and use; evaluation of ecosystem services from the perspective of what is actually used; and conflict management in a multi-lingual, multi-cultural setting. A strong academic background and over 40 years of experience in foreign and domestic ecosystem management form the foundation that enables Dr. Aishton to conduct and manage international and domestic projects that work with culturally diverse groups; manage large budgets; and develop new project opportunities. Dr. Aishton holds a Master of Science in Environmental Policy, a PhD in Environmental Dynamics, and has completed coursework at the Maine School of Law.
Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST’s editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
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.”
-
Movie Reviews18 minutes agoPanic Fest 2026 Film Review: “Buffet Infinity” – MediaMikes
-
World30 minutes agoAcid Attack in Indonesia Evokes Brutality of Suharto Era
-
News36 minutes agoBeneath King Charles’s Jokes and Decorum, Some Subtle Rebuttals to Trump
-
Politics42 minutes agoFull Guest List for Trump’s State Dinner With Charles and Camilla
-
Business48 minutes agoPrime Minister Mark Carney Says Canada’s Economy Is Expected to Grow and Deficit to Fall
-
Health60 minutes agoCould At-Home Brain Stimulation Reduce Psychiatry’s Reliance on S.S.R.I.s?
-
Culture1 hour agoBook Review: ‘The Rolling Stones,’ by Bob Spitz
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoFashion Can’t Get Over Michael Jackson