http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=incaco20100928042

VI. PUBLIC POLICY AND PREJUDICE

EHGA argues the trial court's decision offends the public policies (1) favoring
settlement of disputes; (2) favoring predictable and consistent rules of
contract interpretation; (3) disfavoring forfeiture; (4) favoring combining
flood control and recreation uses; and (5) disfavoring bribery of public
officials. We disagree. From the record before this court, no public policies
were offended. For eight years, Concordia, the County, and the District did
everything in their power to seek an acceptable solution for all parties
involved. The same cannot be said of EHGA.

VII. PREJUDICE

EHGA refers to two pages of the court's statement of decision, claiming "the
comments appeared unnecessary and out of character for a jurist." This court has
reviewed those two pages and finds nothing inappropriate. Furthermore, after
reviewing the record before this court, we note the trial court was objective
and fair to both parties. Accordingly, we reject EHGA's contention that the
trial court appeared prejudiced against EHGA and its counsel.

VIII. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Given our resolution of the issues raised in the appeal in case No. E046936, the
appeal in case No. E044307 is deemed moot and should be dismissed.

IX. DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The appeal in case No. E044307 is deemed moot and is
dismissed. Concordia is awarded its costs on appeal.

We concur: