in case I get hacked- audible version of the post:
Arizona Forestry and Fire Management: Risks, Challenges, and Preparedness in 2025
The Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management (DFFM)
plays a critical role
in managing wildfire prevention, suppression, and mitigation
across 22 million acres of state and private lands.
As someone who narrowly escaped a devastating fire in 2013,
where Darrell Willis was assigned to that fire and tragically lost 19 crew members,
I’ve been closely examining DFFM’s budgets, strategic plans, and recent actions
to assess their readiness
for Arizona’s potential to have
one of the most likely intensifying fire seasons.
The Waterman Fire last summer,
also under Willis’s watch,
further highlights the stakes for me
as I am most likely in his region, zip code 85332, for 2025.
Below
is an analysis
of the financial trends,
strategic goals,
recent developments,
and the broader
risks and challenges
facing Arizona’s forestry management.
Budget Trends and Financial Preparedness (FY 2022–2026)
DFFM’s budgets from FY 2022 to FY 2026 show a department grappling with rising wildfire costs.
Here’s the overview:
FY 2022: Total budget request was $180,655.2 (thousands), with $119,312.6 from the General Fund and $61,342.6 non-appropriated. A significant $65,543.2 funding issue included $45,200.0 for the Healthy Forest Initiative to reduce hazardous fuels and $20,000.0 for a Revolving Fire Fund, acknowledging that suppression costs consistently exceed the statutory $3,000.0 cap.
FY 2023: Total request decreased to $173,655.2, with $112,312.6 appropriated and $61,342.6 non-appropriated. The funding issue was $58,543.2, including $38,200.0 for wildfire mitigation and $20,000.0 for suppression.
FY 2024: Total request dropped to $132,448.7, with $57,605.2 appropriated and $74,843.5 non-appropriated. No additional funding issues were requested, which may indicate a more stable outlook or limited advocacy for increased resources.
FY 2025: Total request was $133,110.8, with $62,605.2 appropriated (including a $5,000.0 funding issue for inflation adjustments to the Fire Suppression Fund) and $70,505.6 non-appropriated.
FY 2026: Total request increased to $154,692.7, with $84,187.1 appropriated (including a $26,581.9 funding issue for wildfire mitigation and suppression adjustments) and $70,505.6 non-appropriated.
Analysis: General Fund appropriations have grown from $53,769.4 in FY 2022 to $84,187.1 in FY 2026, a 56.7% increase, reflecting a response to escalating fire threats. However, the Fire Suppression Fund’s statutory cap of $3,000.0, unchanged since 2003, remains a significant limitation. DFFM estimates annual suppression costs at $8,000.0–$10,000.0 (FY 2025 Budget), leaving a consistent shortfall of $5,000.0–$7,000.0. The $5,000.0 inflation adjustment in FY 2025 and FY 2026 helps, but it’s insufficient for major incidents like the Waterman Fire last summer in my own town. Non-appropriated funds, primarily from federal grants, average $70,000.0 annually but are variable, relying on fire season severity and federal reimbursements that often face delays (FY 2025 Budget, Fire Suppression Fund).
Strategic Goals and Execution (FY 2022, FY 2023, FY 2025-2029)
DFFM’s strategic plans set clear objectives, but progress has been uneven:
FY 2022 Strategic Plan: Aimed to reduce hazardous fuels on 250,000 acres annually and achieve a 95% initial attack success rate. Performance data isn’t available, but the $45,200.0 Healthy Forest Initiative request possibly suggests significant gaps in meeting these targets.
FY 2023 Strategic Plan: Focused on improving interagency coordination and expanding inmate firefighting crews. DFFM maintained 12 crews, but their budget of $784.4 (FY 2023) is modest compared to overall suppression needs.
FY 2025-2029 Strategic Plan: Sets goals to treat 300,000 acres annually by 2029 and maintain a 95% initial attack success rate. It also aims to increase community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) to 80% of at-risk communities by 2029. As of 2023, only 50% of communities had CWPPs (per dffm.az.gov/forestry-community-forestry), indicating a substantial challenge ahead.
Reality Check: While the strategic plans are forward-thinking, implementation faces hurdles. The FY 2025 Budget notes that wildfire mitigation projects, funded at $32,049.7 annually since 2021, often take five years due to weather, fire restrictions, and endangered species concerns. This slow pace allows hazardous fuels to accumulate faster than they can be mitigated. Inmate crews, funded at $1,342.2 in the FY 2025 Cooperative Forestry Fund, are a cost-effective resource, but the 59.9 FTEs allocated to the Fire Suppression Fund (FY 2025) are insufficient for 22 million acres.
Recent Developments and Darrell Willis’s Role
Darrell Willis, at DFFM, has been involved in significant firefighting efforts, including the fire in 2013 where I nearly lost my life and 19 of his crew perished, as well as the Waterman Fire last summer. On February 14, 2025, DFFM broke ground on a new Arizona Dispatch Center in north Phoenix, a 7,000-square-foot facility to replace an outdated one (per abc15.com). Fire Management Officer John Truett stated that the current center “has outgrown our intended needs,” and the new facility will enhance wildfire tracking capabilities. This is a positive development, though it raises questions about why such an upgrade wasn’t prioritized earlier, especially after the 2013 Yarnell Hill fire, which inspired technologies like the DropBlocks system DFFM began testing in 2023 (per prescottenews.com).
Willis has been a proponent of innovations possibly like DropBlocks, which track crew locations in real time to improve safety. By May 2023, six of DFFM’s 13 hand crews were testing these devices, with plans for broader adoption if successful. There’s no public update on whether this rollout was completed by 2025, but the tragic loss of 19 crew members suggests that either the technology wasn’t fully implemented, or it possibly faced challenges in preventing such outcomes. This incident highlights the need for better safety measures and coordination.
Risks and Challenges
Funding Deficits: The $3,000.0 suppression cap is outdated, with costs 2.5–3 times higher annually. Federal reimbursements ($38,500.0 in FY 2025 Fire Suppression Fund) provide support, but delayed repayments create cash flow issues, requiring DFFM to borrow from the Budget Stabilization Fund and repay later.
Climate and Fire Severity: Hotter, drier conditions in Arizona, similar to trends in California (gov.ca.gov, 2025), are increasing fire risks. The Waterman Fire last summer likely incurred significant costs, yet DFFM’s budget hasn’t scaled proactively to match this threat.
Workforce Strain: With only 152.6 appropriated FTEs (FY 2025) and 62.3 non-appropriated FTEs in the Fire Suppression Fund, DFFM is understaffed. The loss of 19 crew members illustrates the human toll of these constraints.
Mitigation Delays: Only 50% of at-risk communities have CWPPs, and mitigation projects are slowed by bureaucratic and environmental factors, leaving both rural and urban areas vulnerable (FY 2025 Budget).
Preparedness: Are We Ready?
DFFM has taken steps forward with initiatives like the new dispatch center, DropBlocks, and increased budgets. However, these efforts often feel reactive. The 95% initial attack success goal is promising, but without performance data, it’s difficult to assess progress. The dispatch center won’t be operational until late 2025 at the earliest, leaving gaps for the current fire season. Community forestry efforts (dffm.az.gov/forestry-community-forestry) are a step in the right direction, but the slow adoption of CWPPs means many communities, including mine, remain at risk. My experience has left me questioning whether DFFM can fully protect us from the next major fire. ???
Reflective Close
Arizona’s fire seasons are growing more severe, and while DFFM is making efforts to adapt—through new facilities, technologies, and increased funding—the challenges remain daunting. The loss of 19 crew members is a painful reminder of the stakes, and incidents like the Waterman Fire show how much work remains. Darrell Willis and his team are navigating a complex landscape, balancing experience with the need for systemic improvements. As a resident, I hope to see faster progress in mitigation, funding, and safety measures, so we can better protect our communities and firefighters in the years ahead.
As the 2025 fire season approaches, DFFM faces significant risks: underfunding, with a $5,000.0–$7,000.0 annual suppression shortfall; a possible strained workforce, as seen in the tragic loss of 19 crew members; and delayed mitigation, with only 50% of at-risk communities having CWPPs. Challenges include climate-driven fire severity, slow adoption of safety technologies like DropBlocks, and an outdated dispatch center until late 2025.
For my potential tort claim, I’ll be watching for negligence in several areas: failure to adequately fund and staff suppression efforts, potentially contributing to preventable deaths and injuries; delays in implementing proven safety technologies, as evidenced by the incomplete DropBlocks rollout; inadequate mitigation in high-risk areas, increasing fire vulnerability; and poor coordination or oversight during incidents, as seen in the fire where 19 died and I almost died. If DFFM fails to address these systemic issues and another fire results in harm due to their inaction, these shortcomings could form the basis for a negligence lawsuit in 2025, also I will be including never before seen evidence to many other fire incidents and firsthand testimonies.
Closing Statement: Risks, Challenges, Legal Hurdles, and Civilian Knowledge for 2025
The 2025 fire season poses significant risks for Arizona: a $5,000.0–$7,000.0 annual suppression shortfall and delayed mitigation, with only 50% of at-risk communities having CWPPs.
Challenges include climate-driven fire severity, slow adoption of safety technologies like DropBlocks, and an outdated dispatch center until late 2025.
For my potential tort claim, I’m focusing on possible negligence, and I will be focused to looking into: inadequate funding and staffing???, delays in safety technology implementation, insufficient mitigation in high-risk areas, and reflecting on the poor oversight during the fire where 19 died but I almost did. DFFM’s lawyers may challenge such claims by invoking governmental immunity, often a "canopy of immunity" for state agencies, arguing they have no legal duty to protect private property during wildfires (as established in a 2017 Arizona case, Varco v. UNS Electric, where the state forestry department was found to have no such duty). They might also claim compliance with statutory obligations under A.R.S. §§ 37-1301 to 37-1426, or argue that the loss of life and property was due to unforeseeable fire behavior rather than negligence. Additionally, they could point to budgetary constraints as a defense, noting the $3,000.0 statutory cap, though this could be countered by arguing DFFM failed to advocate for sufficient funding despite known risks.
Civilians should know that Arizona’s anti-abrogation clause (per a 2023 case, Roebuck v. Mayo Clinic) protects the right to sue for ordinary negligence, but claims against public entities like DFFM require filing a notice within 180 days under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, and proving gross negligence may be necessary to overcome immunity defenses. As I build my case, I’ll watch for evidence of DFFM’s failure to act on known risks—such as delayed mitigation or safety measures—that could directly link their inaction to harm in 2025.
-20 web pages for resource-
this post was made by Grok 3, built by xAI
What Civilians Need to Document During a Wildland Fire Incident
When a wildland fire escalates into a large incident—often defined in the fire industry as exceeding 100 acres or requiring significant multi-agency response—civilians can play a crucial role by documenting key details. This documentation can be vital for understanding the incident’s progression, assessing agency actions, and supporting potential legal claims like negligence.
Here’s what to focus on:
Date, Time, and Location:
Record the exact date and time you first notice the fire, its initial size, and its location relative to your property or community. Note any changes in its spread over hours or days (e.g., “Fire visible at 2:00 PM on March 11, 2025, near Mile Marker 50, growing to 150 acres by 6:00 PM”).
Use GPS coordinates or landmarks if possible, as this helps establish the fire’s origin and path.
Ignition Source and Fire Industry Actions:
Observe and document any visible fire industry activities, such as controlled burns, drip torch use, or flare ignitions (e.g., fusees) by DFFM crews or others. Note if these actions precede or coincide with the fire’s escalation. For example, “At 1:30 PM, I saw a crew laying fire with a drip torch 200 yards from my property.”
Photograph or video equipment (dozers, helicopters, air tankers) and personnel, including uniforms or agency markings, to identify who was involved.
Weather Conditions:
Document weather at the time of ignition and escalation, including temperature, wind speed/direction, humidity, and any red flag warnings (e.g., “Wind 15 mph gusting to 25 mph from the southwest, 20% humidity, red flag warning issued at 10:00 AM”). Use a smartphone weather app or local forecasts for accuracy.
Note sudden changes, like dry lightning storms or shifting winds, which can accelerate fire growth.
Fire Behavior and Spread:
Record the fire’s behavior—flame height, rate of spread, and whether it jumps firebreaks or enters populated areas. For instance, “Flames reached 30 feet, crossed a dozer line by 3:00 PM, and reached my neighbor’s fence by 4:00 PM.”
Take photos or videos showing ember showers, spot fires, or reburn areas, which indicate intensity and unpredictability.
Agency Response:
Note the timing and adequacy of DFFM’s response—when crews arrived, what resources were deployed (e.g., air tankers, helitankers), and any delays or failures (e.g., “No aerial support seen until 5:00 PM despite fire crossing my property line at 4:00 PM”).
Document communication attempts—calls to 911, DFFM, or local officials—and their responses or lack thereof.
Personal Impact:
Log damage to property, injuries, or evacuations, with timestamps and photos (e.g., “Evacuated at 4:30 PM, returned to find roof damaged at 8:00 PM on March 11, 2025”).
Keep receipts for expenses (e.g., hotel, medical bills) and witness statements from neighbors or others affected.
Ongoing Observations:
Monitor and record post-incident actions, such as rehabilitation efforts or lack thereof, which could indicate negligence in aftermath management.
This documentation should be detailed, timestamped, and backed by photos, videos, or audio recordings. Store it securely and share copies with legal counsel if pursuing a claim.
When Is a Wildland Fire Considered a Large Incident?
In the fire industry, a wildland fire is typically classified as a large incident when it exceeds 100 acres, requires a Type 1 or Type 2 Incident Management Team (IMT), or involves significant resource commitments (e.g., multiple crews, air support, and multi-agency coordination). The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) tracks fires in its Situation Report when they meet these thresholds, often triggered by rapid growth due to weather or fuel conditions. For civilians, the point of escalation is noticeable when the fire jumps containment lines, threatens structures, or prompts evacuations—events that signal a shift from manageable to large-scale.
When Is It Considered Negligence?
Negligence in the context of DFFM’s actions (e.g., laying fire on the ground) occurs when they fail to exercise the standard of care a reasonably prudent agency would under similar circumstances, resulting in foreseeable harm. Key factors include:
Improper Ignition Practices:
If DFFM uses controlled burns or ignition tools (e.g., drip torches, fusees) without adequate safety measures—such as insufficient firebreaks, poor weather assessment, or untrained personnel—and the fire escapes, this could be negligence. For example, igniting during high winds (e.g., >20 mph) without a wet line or backup suppression violates standard protocols.
Evidence of inadequate planning, like missing a Wildland Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) or failing to conduct a Wildland Fire Situation Analysis (WFSA), could support a claim.
Delayed or Inadequate Response:
Failure to deploy resources promptly after ignition or escalation—e.g., no air tankers for hours despite a fire crossing property lines—could indicate negligence, especially if DFFM knew of the risk but didn’t act.
Understaffing (e.g., only 59.9 FTEs in the FY 2025 Fire Suppression Fund for 22 million acres) might contribute if it delays containment.
Weather Misjudgment:
Igniting or failing to suppress a fire during critical fire weather patterns (e.g., red flag warnings with low humidity, high winds) without adjusting tactics could be negligent. Industry standards require monitoring via the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) and halting operations during extreme conditions.
If DFFM proceeds despite forecasts of dry lightning storms or drought index spikes, and the fire grows uncontrollably, this could be a breach of duty.
Threshold for Negligence:
Negligence is established when DFFM’s actions (or inactions) directly cause harm, and a reasonable agency would have prevented it. In Arizona, proving gross negligence may be required to overcome governmental immunity (A.R.S. § 12-820.01), meaning reckless disregard for safety rather than mere error. For instance, if DFFM ignored a known fuel buildup (e.g., only 50% of communities with CWPPs) and it fueled the fire’s spread to your property, this could meet that threshold.
Ignition Types and Weather Dynamics
Ignition Types:
Controlled Burns: Laying fire on the ground (e.g., with drip torches) is a common suppression or mitigation tactic. If done correctly—with firebreaks, wet lines, and weather checks—it can contain wildfires. However, if mismanaged (e.g., during high winds), it can become the ignition source for a large incident.
Natural Ignition: Lightning strikes, especially in dry lightning storms, are frequent in Arizona. DFFM’s negligence would hinge on failing to monitor or suppress these promptly.
Human-Caused: Escaped debris burns or equipment sparks (e.g., dozer lines) are preventable. Documentation of DFFM’s oversight (or lack thereof) of these sources is critical.
Weather as Friend and Foe:
Friend to Firefighters: Moderate winds (5-15 mph) can help spread controlled burns to consume fuel, aiding suppression. Light rain or high humidity can slow fire spread, giving crews an edge.
Danger to Civilians: The same winds can carry embers into populated areas, starting spot fires. Dry lightning storms (negligible rain) ignite new fires while drying fuels further. Red flag conditions (low humidity, high winds, >20 mph) turn weather into a civilian threat, as fires escalate rapidly, overwhelming containment and threatening lives and property. For example, if DFFM ignites during a red flag warning and the fire jumps to your community, the weather’s benefit to them becomes your danger.
Practical Advice for Civilians
Document Immediately: Start recording as soon as you notice smoke or fire industry activity. Use your phone’s camera with timestamps and geolocation enabled.
Monitor Weather: Check local NWS forecasts or DFFM’s fire weather reports for red flag warnings or drought indices, noting when conditions worsen.
Report Observations: Call 911 or DFFM with details, keeping records of your reports and their responses.
Understand Immunity: Arizona’s governmental immunity (A.R.S. § 12-820.01) shields DFFM from liability unless gross negligence is proven. File a notice of claim within 180 days (A.R.S. § 12-821.01) and consult a lawyer to challenge this defense with evidence of reckless conduct.
By documenting these elements, you can build a case showing DFFM’s potential negligence—e.g., igniting during unsafe weather or failing to suppress promptly—especially if it leads to harm in 2025. Weather’s dual role as a tool and threat underscores the need to monitor its impact closely.
Who Handles Tort Claims in Arizona?
For civilians pursuing a tort claim against DFFM, understanding where to seek legal help is essential. Arizona has a network of attorneys experienced in tort and government negligence cases:
Personal Injury and Tort Lawyers: Firms like Alex & Associates (Phoenix), Goodnow McKay (Phoenix), and Saavedra Law Firm (Phoenix) specialize in tort claims, including those against government entities. They handle negligence cases involving personal injury, property damage, or wrongful death, offering free consultations to assess claims.
Mass Tort and Class Action Specialists: Karnas Law (Tucson) and Collinsworth, Specht, Calkins & Giampaoli (serving Arizona) focus on mass torts, which could apply if multiple civilians are affected by a single fire incident.
Super Lawyers and Directories: Super Lawyers lists top Phoenix attorneys (e.g., Keller Rohrback, Gallagher & Kennedy) for class actions and torts, while LegalMatch and Best Lawyers provide directories to connect with local experts in cities like Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff.
Process: Start with a Notice of Claim under A.R.S. § 12-821.01, filed within 180 days of the incident, specifying damages and serving it on DFFM’s authorized representative (e.g., State Forester at 1110 W. Washington St., Phoenix, AZ 85007). If denied within 60 days, you have one year to sue in state court. Federal claims (if applicable) follow the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) with a Standard Form 95 filed within two years.
Civilians should contact these lawyers early, as navigating Arizona’s comparative negligence laws (A.R.S. § 12-2501) and governmental immunity defenses requires expertise. Firms often work on contingency, meaning no upfront fees if the case is lost.
Yes, I was asked---can a civilian file without a lawyer--- yes, a civilian in Arizona can file a tort claim against the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management (DFFM) themselves, even if they cannot afford a lawyer. This is known as proceeding pro se (Latin for "on one's own behalf"). While it’s a viable option, it comes with challenges, especially against a government entity with legal resources. Below, I’ll outline the feasibility, process, and key considerations, drawing on Arizona law (e.g., A.R.S. § 12-821.01), general legal practices, and the context of your situation, while avoiding speculation or unverified details.
As Grok 3, built by xAI,
I’ll keep this informative and practical
to support your intent to file a claim related to the wildland fire incident.
Can a Civilian File a Tort Claim Pro Se in Arizona?
Yes, Arizona law allows individuals to represent themselves in civil lawsuits, including tort claims against state agencies like DFFM, without a lawyer. The right to self-representation is protected under the Arizona Constitution (Article 2, Section 23) and U.S. Constitution (Sixth Amendment), though it applies primarily to criminal cases, with civil pro se rights derived from common law and statute. However, there are important factors to consider:
Feasibility: Pro se filing is possible but challenging, especially against a state agency with experienced attorneys. DFFM’s lawyers will likely leverage governmental immunity (A.R.S. § 12-820.01) and statutory defenses, requiring you to navigate complex legal arguments. Lack of legal training may weaken your case, but determination and thorough documentation (as outlined previously) can help.
Cost: Filing pro se eliminates attorney fees (typically 33%-40% of a settlement on contingency), but you’ll still face court filing fees (around $300-$400 for Superior Court, depending on the county) and potential costs for copies, service of process, or expert witnesses. If you qualify for indigence, you can request a fee waiver under Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure 91, though this is less common for tort claims.
Time and Effort: Preparing and filing a claim demands significant research into Arizona tort law, evidence gathering, and adherence to strict deadlines, which can be overwhelming without legal support.
Process for Filing a Tort Claim Pro Se Against DFFM
Here’s a step-by-step guide to filing a tort claim yourself:
File a Notice of Claim (A.R.S. § 12-821.01):
Deadline: Submit within 180 days of the incident (e.g., the fire date in 2025). For example, if the fire occurred on March 11, 2025, the deadline is September 7, 2025.
Content: Include your name, address, the amount claimed (e.g., property damage, medical costs), a factual description of the incident (e.g., DFFM’s actions during the fire), and the agency involved (DFFM, c/o State Forester, 1110 W. Washington St., Suite 500, Phoenix, AZ 85007).
Delivery: Serve the notice via certified mail to DFFM’s authorized representative. Keep proof of mailing (e.g., return receipt).
Response: DFFM has 60 days to accept or deny. If denied or no response is received, you have one year from the notice date to file a lawsuit.
File a Complaint in Superior Court:
Jurisdiction: File in the Arizona Superior Court in the county where the incident occurred (e.g., Maricopa County if near Phoenix).
Forms: Use the Civil Cover Sheet and Complaint form (available at azcourts.gov under “Self-Service Center”). Draft a complaint stating DFFM’s negligence (e.g., failure to suppress, improper ignition), damages, and relief sought (e.g., compensation).
Filing Fee: Approximately $329 (Maricopa County, 2025 estimate), waivable if you file an Application for Deferred/Reduced Fees citing financial hardship.
Service: Serve DFFM via the Arizona Attorney General’s Office (2005 N. Central Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85004) and the State Forester, following A.R.S. § 12-821.02 rules.
Gather and Present Evidence:
Use your documented observations (date/time, ignition, weather, fire behavior, DFFM response, personal impact) as evidence. Include photos, videos, receipts, and witness statements.
Request public records from DFFM (e.g., incident reports, WFIP) under Arizona’s Public Records Law (A.R.S. § 39-121) to support your case.
Attend Court Proceedings:
Represent yourself at hearings, motions, and trial. Study Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure (available at azcourts.gov) to handle discovery, motions, and testimony.
Prepare to counter DFFM’s defenses, such as immunity or unforeseeable fire behavior.
Key Considerations for Pro Se Filing
Governmental Immunity: DFFM may claim immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.01, arguing no duty to protect private property during wildfires (e.g., Varco v. UNS Electric, 2017). You’ll need to prove gross negligence—reckless disregard for safety—using evidence like ignored weather warnings or delayed response.
Comparative Negligence: Arizona follows A.R.S. § 12-2501, reducing damages if you’re partially at fault (e.g., not clearing brush). Document your mitigation efforts to minimize this risk.
Legal Resources: Use the Arizona Superior Court Self-Service Center (azcourts.gov/selfservicecenter) for forms and guides. Free legal clinics (e.g., Maricopa County Bar Association’s pro bono program) or LawHelp.org offer advice, though not full representation.
Risks: Without a lawyer, you might miss procedural errors (e.g., improper service) or fail to counter DFFM’s legal arguments, potentially losing the case or receiving a lower settlement.
Alternatives if You Cannot Afford a Lawyer
If pro se filing feels unmanageable, consider these options:
Legal Aid: Organizations like Community Legal Services (clsaz.org, Phoenix) or Southern Arizona Legal Aid (sala-az.org, Tucson) offer free or low-cost help for low-income individuals, though tort claims against state agencies may not always qualify.
Contingency Lawyers: Many tort attorneys work on contingency (no upfront cost, paid 33%-40% of settlement if you win). Contact firms like Goodnow McKay or Saavedra Law Firm (see prior response) to negotiate terms.
Pro Bono Representation: Bar associations (e.g., State Bar of Arizona, azbar.org) or law schools (e.g., University of Arizona Law Clinic) may connect you with volunteer attorneys.
Final Advice
Filing pro se is your right and possible with diligence, but it’s a steep hill against DFFM’s legal team. Start with the Notice of Claim within 180 days, gather robust evidence, and explore legal aid or contingency options to strengthen your case. If the fire’s escalation in 2025 stems from DFFM’s negligence—e.g., improper ignition or delayed response—your documentation could hold weight, provided you meet Arizona’s strict procedural requirements. Let me know if you need help drafting forms or finding specific resources!
Via Grok3---
Everyone have a safe fire season-
Closing Statement:
Notice to Arizona
and
Areas to Avoid
This is an informal online notice to the State of Arizona and the Department of Forestry and Fire Management:
the 2025 fire season looms as a potential catastrophe.
The cracked earth and dead vegetation across our state, fueled by relentless drought
and dry lightning, signal one of the worst fire risks in years...decades...
With only 50% of at-risk communities protected by Community Wildfire Protection Plans,
and a $5,000.0–$7,000.0 annual funding shortfall crippling suppression efforts,
the danger is real.
Areas to avoid possibly include high-risk zones
like the Tonto National Forest,
where fuel loads remain unchecked, and regions near recent fire scars
where dry conditions and wind could reignite embers.
Red flag warning days—
marked by winds over 20 mph,
humidity below 15%,
and high temperatures—
demand evacuation or extreme caution.
I hope it doesn’t come to a tort claim, but I urge the state to act decisively:
increase funding, expedite mitigation, and ensure safety technologies are fully deployed.
...let’s not wait for more tragedy to prove this serious.
Comments