Lorraine Williamson
Spain’s most politically loaded natural-disaster investigation has turned, once again, on a simple question: who knew what, and when?
On Friday, Partido Popular leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo told a judge he did not receive “real-time” updates from Carlos Mazón during the deadly October 2024 DANA in Valencia—despite having said the opposite in the days after the catastrophe.
His testimony, given by videoconference to the court in Catarroja, lands in the middle of a criminal investigation focused on whether delays, confusion, and poor coordination helped turn extreme weather into mass tragedy.
A disaster measured in minutes, not days
The DANA that hit on 29 October 2024 overwhelmed towns and suburbs across Valencia with fast-rising floodwaters. The death toll in Valencia reached 230, and thousands were forced from their homes.
For many families, the anger has never been about the rain alone. It’s about time.
Court files and testimony have repeatedly circled around the emergency mobile alert—ES-Alert—which, according to the investigation, was not sent until 8.11 pm, even though the need for an alert had been discussed earlier.
“Real time” becomes “a mistake”
Feijóo’s appearance before the judge was triggered by his own earlier public comments. Two days after the floods, he told reporters Mazón had kept him informed “in real time”.
Under oath, he said that was not true.
According to reporting from RTVE and Cadena SER, Feijóo told the court his contact with Mazón on the day came via WhatsApp, with the first message exchanged around 7.59 pm —hours after flood impacts were already escalating.
RTVE also reports Feijóo voluntarily handed over the messages, including one where he urged Mazón to take the lead in public communication.
The missing piece: where was Mazón?
The Valencia case has become as much about political credibility as operational decision-making.
Investigators have been examining contradictory public accounts from senior figures, including Mazón and Salomé Pradas, the then regional minister responsible for justice and interior. Pradas is among the key figures under scrutiny.
El País has reported previously on evidence suggesting delays and confusion inside the crisis-management structure, including what was happening around the Cecopi coordination centre and Mazón’s movements later in the evening.
In court, Feijóo said he did not know Mazón’s whereabouts during the critical hours, and he acknowledged he had not asked for direct updates.
Cecopi, ES-Alert—and who is responsible in Spain?
A striking detail from the testimony is Feijóo’s admission that he did not understand the role of Cecopi, the regional crisis coordination hub linked to the management of the emergency response.
That matters because Spain’s emergency system is deliberately decentralised. In most cases, the autonomous region leads the immediate response, while the national government supports and scales resources when requested or required.
That framework is now central to the judge’s inquiry: not just whether alerts were late, but whether decision-making channels were clear, active and functioning under pressure.
A political aftershock that hasn’t ended
Feijóo pointed to his experience handling major incidents as president of Galicia, including the 2013 Santiago de Compostela train derailment. But, by his own account, nothing on this scale.
The case has already led to consequences inside Valencia’s regional government. Feijóo told the judge Mazón, who later referenced a reshuffle after the disaster, which ultimately removed Salomé Pradas from her post.
Yet the bigger question—whether negligence contributed to loss of life—remains open.
Journalist speaks out on Mazón lunch
The hearings are widening
Feijóo’s testimony marks the start of a new round of witness evidence. Over the coming months, dozens more people are expected to testify, including advisers, emergency staff and regional officials.
For victims’ families, the court timetable isn’t procedural. It’s personal.
Every new timeline, every message, every unexplained delay adds weight to a case built on one grim possibility: that some deaths might have been avoided if warnings had arrived sooner and if leaders had acted more quickly.
Sources: