A new wave of scandal is unfolding in Valencia following a catastrophic flood that claimed hundreds of lives. Investigators have obtained video footage that, for a long time, was withheld from both the court and the public. The footage documents the actions of key officials on the day of the tragedy, raising even more questions about their role in what happened.
The recording, commissioned by the regional government, shows emergency workers arriving at the coordination center in L’Eliana. Among them are the former head of the agency, her deputy, and another high-ranking official. The center’s screens at that moment show the progression of the disaster, while documents examined by the former chief highlight particularly dangerous areas: the Magro River and the Poyo ravine. The flooding of these zones triggered the destructive wave that swept through several towns.
Investigators paid special attention to footage in which the former official makes notes about the need to monitor hazardous areas and mentions firefighters. However, it later emerged that critical sites had stopped being monitored well before the disaster peaked. The fire chief explained this by saying that staff had left to have lunch, a decision that sparked outrage among many.
The video, which was added to the case file only after persistent demands from the court, turned out to be edited. Representatives of public organizations are demanding the original, unaltered footage, suspecting that some information may have been removed. A lawyer from one of the associations is convinced that the recording was manipulated.
At the same time, the entourage of the former head of the agency is downplaying the significance of the new materials, insisting that the priority was always to ensure timely delivery of information to the affected cities. However, the investigation revealed that residents were notified of the impending danger with considerable delay—when the consequences had already become irreversible.
The emergence of new video materials also casts doubt on the claims that regional authorities lacked information. Previously, officials stated they had not received timely warnings from national meteorological and hydrological agencies. Now, in light of these new facts, that position appears increasingly less convincing.
