This week, confessions were heard in the Catarroja courthouse that could change the course of the investigation into one of Valencia’s deadliest disasters in recent years. Former head of the provincial fire consortium, José Miguel Basset, stated that he learned about the withdrawal of his personnel from the Poyo area only several days after the tragedy. It was there, in the flooded ravine, that the catastrophe unfolded, claiming the lives of 230 people in 2024.
Basset testified in court as a witness. His statements came amid an ongoing investigation into the circumstances that led to the mass loss of life. According to him, he only found out that firefighters had left the hazardous area after a spokesperson from the Valencia regional government directly asked about the reasons for this decision. Until that moment, Basset claims he was unaware of the evacuation itself or the reasons behind it.
During questioning, Basset stressed that he had not been informed about any plans to monitor the ravines, nor was he told about the withdrawal of rescue teams. Once he found out what had happened, he began to investigate the details. According to Basset, technical specialist Antonio Mira explained that the decision to withdraw was made due to water levels and measurements taken at lunchtime. This, Basset said, led to his careless comment, which later sparked controversy.
Critical hours
In April, already retired, Basset revealed that on the day of the disaster, monitoring of Poyo stopped when his subordinates went on their lunch break. Firefighters left the danger zone around 3:00 p.m.—an hour and a half before the water flow breached the protective barriers and flooded the towns of Chiva and Cheste, home to thousands of residents.
At the trial, Basset gave a detailed account of his work in the Cecopi crisis headquarters, which coordinated emergency services at the height of the disaster. He recalled that it wasn’t until 5:30 p.m. that he received information about the real threat of a breach at the Forata dam in Yátova. Had the dam failed, casualties could have reached eight thousand. It was then, together with Deputy Head of Emergency Services Jorge Suárez, that he suggested residents be urgently warned to move to upper floors. However, according to him, no one responded to this proposal.
Basset pointed out that he does not know who decided or where the decision was made to send the mass Es Alert notification at 8:11 p.m. By that time, according to the investigation, at least 155 people had already died, and the fate of another 39 was sealed. Basset himself learned about the existence of this alert only when it arrived on his phone.
Disagreements and details
During the hearings, it emerged that Cecopi headquarters became aware of the first victim in Utiel between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. This contradicts the statements of former Valencian government president Carlos Mazón, who previously claimed he only learned about the casualties the day after the tragedy. As a result, Baset’s testimony calls into question the official version of events presented to the parliamentary commission investigating the disaster.
The judge scheduled additional hearings with Baset, considering him a key figure in examining the actions of emergency services during the critical hours. His testimony could shed light on why decisions were delayed and who is responsible for the lack of coordination between agencies.
Unanswered Questions
Before the hearing began, Baset stated he did not argue with Deputy Emergency Services Chief Suárez or oppose the Es Alert broadcast on the day of the tragedy. However, his comments do not address why information about the withdrawal of rescuers failed to reach leadership in time and why the emergency alert was sent out after the situation had already spiraled out of control.
The DANA incident once again exposed weaknesses in the emergency response system. Admissions by the former head of Valencia’s fire department are alarming: if even key officials were not receiving timely information, how can the effective coordination of services be ensured? The court will have to find answers to these questions, and for now, we can only watch as events unfold and hope that the tragedy will not be repeated.
