Pradas and Argüeso trade blame over command during the 2024 Valencia floods

Two defences, one flood

On the second anniversary of the 29 October 2024 floods in Valencia, which killed 233 people, the former regional officials Salomé Pradas and Emilio Argüeso are attacking each other in the Catarroja court case. Both are under investigation. Argüeso appealed an order of the examining judge dated 13 October 2026, asking the Audiencia Provincial to declare that after situation 2 was activated and the Cecopi set up, the top direction and command of the emergency belonged exclusively to Pradas. Pradas's defence, in a 14-page writ filed by her lawyer Pedro Colina, opposes the appeal and asks the court to reject it. Her lawyers call the claim legally inadmissible and say it would turn an administrative division of powers into an early finding of sole responsibility.

When situation 2 was declared

The defence argues that situation 2 was declared progressively and did not reach the whole province until 19.00 hours, so powers must be assigned by territory, time and the situation actually declared. According to the defence's timeline, as reported by La Razón, situation 2 was reached in Utiel-Requena at 15.00 and in the two Riberas at 18.45, before the province-wide declaration. The writ cites section 5.1 of the Special Plan for flood risk in the Valencian Community, which says that during pre-emergencies and situations 0 and 1 direction is delegated to the head of the AVSRE to improve operations. That post, the defence says, was held by Argüeso at the time.

The Es-Alert and the Cecopi

Argüeso's side claims Pradas alone held the monopoly over the Es-Alert phone alert and was the only person able to trigger it during the day. Pradas's defence rejects this, saying use of the system during the pre-emergency phase shows it was not necessarily tied to a situation 2 declaration. It also notes that no specific, complete protocol exists for sending alerts to mobile phones. The defence adds that the Cecopi was not an isolated body, since services such as the 112 service and the emergency coordination centre took part in it, and that Argüeso's position as AVSRE director must be analysed in that context. The defence further says the convening of the Cecopi was processed on instructions from Argüeso.

What the judge's order says

In an order reported on 29 October, the examining judge states that Argüeso convened the Cecopi meeting of 29 October 2024 and was himself among those summoned, even though in his statement as a person under investigation he said he should not have attended. The judge notes that the summons was sent by email on behalf of the AVSRE director to the invited bodies and authorities. She also finds it hard to understand that Argüeso warned in an internal Consell chat at 14.44 that the ravines were 'about to collapse', while the monitoring of those resources, including forest firefighters, was not kept up continuously. The order accepts a proposal from one of the private prosecutors on the failed monitoring of water flow in the Poyo ravine and gives the Consorcio Provincial de Bomberos de Valencia five days to submit operational records, reports and communications.

Presumption of innocence

Pradas's writ argues that criminal responsibility is personal and must be assessed case by case, rather than attributed through a general reading of who held competences.

“The presumption of innocence and the personal nature of criminal liability require that the obligations and conduct of each investigated person be examined individually.”

The appeal is now before the Audiencia Provincial, which must decide whether to accept Argüeso's request or reject it as the defence asks. The Consorcio's five-day deadline for the operational records is the next step ordered by the judge.