The magistrate from Catarroja who is investigating the case regarding the management of the DANA has reiterated in a new resolution that she does not perceive "any indication" of responsibility or criminal "reproach" in the actions of the mayors of the municipalities affected by the floods of October 29, 2024, which caused 230 fatalities in the province of Valencia.
This is stated in a ruling with which she rejects the request of a private prosecution that sought to summon seven witnesses to try to demonstrate the absence of warnings to the public by the Algemesí City Council on the day of the rainfall episode and the eventual responsibilities of the local administration derived from this alleged lack of communication.
Said prosecution requested that these testimonies be held before the statements of the mayors who have not yet appeared, especially that of the mayor of Algemesí, José Javier Sanchis. However, the judge dismisses the request and refers to the same reasoning she already used to deny the imputation of the mayor of Utiel, Ricardo Gabaldón.
In this regard, the investigating judge recalls that she already made it clear that there is a "radical difference" between the local and regional administration "for the purpose of issuing alerts to the population and adopting self-protection measures," a difference that stems from access to information "and has its culmination in the multiple organizational tools and resources available from the Emergency Coordination Center."
"Those who held command of the emergency in the regional Administration had an extensive flow of information, through not only Aemet, Avamet, the media, but also the CHJ, calls to 112," indicates the magistrate, who adds that, furthermore, "they could be assisted by more qualified emergency personnel in the Cecopi meeting."
In contrast, she emphasizes that "it is a different matter that, despite this, the directors of the Special Flood Plan of the Valencian Community were unaware of their responsibilities, or were presented with legal doubts without real basis, disconnected from what is the necessary and urgent safeguarding of the population."
In the same vein, it insists that there is a "radical difference" with the town councils regarding the competence in directing the plan: the Special Flood Plan provides that, in pre-emergency and in emergency 0 and 1, to improve operability, the head of the Ministry competent in civil protection and emergencies delegates the direction of the plan to whoever directs the Valencian Agency for Security and Emergency Response (AVSRE).
The councilor responsible for civil protection at that time was the investigated person, Salomé Pradas, and the director of the AVSRE was the also investigated person Emilio Argüeso, regional secretary of emergencies when the events occurred. The direction of the plan implies, among other tasks, declaring the pre-emergency situation, ordering the constitution of the Cecopi and setting the actions to be executed by this body.
The ruling details "expressly" that this function entails actions "of great relevance" in its position as "guarantor" of human lives, such as determining, according to the type and severity of the emergency, the protection measures for the population; deciding on human and material resources; the information that must be supplied to citizens and the media; setting priorities for restoring essential public services; informing the Civil Protection Commission of the Valencian Community of emergencies that involve the activation of the plan and ensuring its operability through its implementation and maintenance.
For the judge, all considerations regarding alerts and special notices issued "remain fully valid" and have been "reinforced, if possible," after the statements of the mayors of Utiel, Requena, Chiva, and Torrent, who have insisted on two "core issues": "they provided information to the Emergency Coordination Center and also requested help from it."
The relevance of the Cecopi and the notices
In relation to that flow of data to the Cecopi, the instructor considers "especially significant" the statement of the mayor of Torrent, Amparo Folgado, who recounted the call she made to the president of the Diputació de València, Vicente Mompó —summoned again to testify in light of this testimony—, who was at the Cecopi and maintained "fluid and constant" communication with Pradas.
That call, in which he warned him of the situation of the l'Horteta ravine and the state it was in at its confluence with the Poyo ravine, was registered at 18:38. Later, at 19:10, he called Argüeso to inform him that the El Pantano urbanization was flooded and that the National Police had informed him of the existence of a deceased person.
"To claim at this stage that the state of the Poyo ravine was unknown at Cecopi and that the ES-Alert at 20:11 was sent exclusively because of the Forata dam is hardly sustainable," states the magistrate.
Similarly, she highlights that the then mayoress of Chiva, Amparo Fort, spoke with the Firefighters' deputy, Avelino Mascarell, "warning him when the water was already flowing through the street in Chiva, and later when she told him 'we are already flooded'"; that the Government delegate, Pilar Bernabé, relayed the call from the mayoress of Paiporta to Pradas; and that the commander of the UME, before 19:00, warned the Deputy Director of Emergencies, Jorge Suárez, of the ravine's overflow as it passed through Riba-roja.
Emergency situation 2 was declared for the Hoya de Buñol, headwaters of the Poyo ravine, and for the entire province around 19:00, and was communicated to the permanent SMS group, for the entire province, at 19:19. Suárez stated that this declaration of emergency situation 2 in the afternoon, first in Riera Alta and Ribera Baja, then in Hoya de Buñol and, finally, in all of Valencia "was based on the cases created by the 112 calls and the mayors' calls."
The judge adds that it is "symptomatic" that the Emergency Coordination Center, despite being the body called upon to coordinate the emergency, presented a "lack of instructions or orders in this regard," to the point that, when Utiel requested coordination in a call to 112, a technician responded: "coordinate us, we never coordinate anything."