Lorraine Williamson
Carlos MazónThe deaths of 228 people in the October 2024 floods in Valencia have triggered a high-profile criminal investigation, placing former regional minister Salomé Pradas at the centre of growing political and public scrutiny.
The inquiry, led by a judge in Catarroja, is probing the events surrounding the flood of 29 October. Several individuals remain missing. The case has become a lightning rod for debate over accountability, infrastructure, and crisis management in the face of extreme weather.
Criminal probe names two former officials
On 10 March, Judge Martín Pardo formally named Pradas and her husband, Emilio Argüeso – a former Secretary of State for Emergency Aid – as suspects. Both face potential charges of involuntary manslaughter and unintentional injury, which carry prison terms of up to four and three years respectively.
The ruling also opened the door for Carlos Mazón, President of the Generalitat Valenciana, to testify voluntarily as a suspect. He declined. A formal summons is still possible but would need approval from the Valencian High Court (TSJCV).
The investigation is ongoing. The national meteorological agency AEMET, the Júcar River Basin Authority (CHJ), and other relevant bodies could provide further testimonies.
Natural disaster or systemic negligence?
Pradas denies wrongdoing. She argues that the catastrophe was caused by extreme, unpredictable rainfall and should be treated as a natural disaster, not a criminal matter. Her legal team is seeking the dismissal of the case.
She claims she is being used as a scapegoat. In her view, the response involved multiple institutions, and the failure was collective. She pointed to unclear emergency protocols and the lack of coordination between 112 emergency services and other first responders.
Blame, responsibility and infrastructure failures
According to her defence, underlying problems long predated her time in office. Pradas’ lawyer cites historical neglect of critical infrastructure, including the Rambla de Bétera and the Barranco del Poyo.
In the town of Cheste, drainage projects dating back to 2005 had yet to be implemented. The defence maintains that it was not only the volume of rain, but inadequate preparation and poor maintenance that caused the devastation.
High-level pressure and legal uncertainty
The question remains: why is Pradas being prosecuted while Mazón is not? Under regional law, Pradas had direct responsibility for emergency services and the ES-Alert system. Those systems failed during the crisis.
Mazón, as president, holds ultimate political responsibility but is not accused of direct involvement in operational decisions. Unless evidence of wilful negligence emerges, he is unlikely to face formal charges.
Nonetheless, political pressure is mounting. Critics accuse Mazón of poor leadership and withholding information in the flood’s aftermath.
What happens next?
The court has yet to decide whether to proceed or drop the charges. Pradas maintains she acted within her role and capacity. The case, she argues, highlights wider systemic failings in Spain’s disaster preparedness, not personal criminal liability.
For now, the case remains open. As the investigation expands, questions over institutional responsibility are unlikely to disappear.