Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
sole source of water. Horse Creek is a tributary of the Peace River, and Horse Creek supplies approximately fifteen percent of the fresh water to the portion of the Peace River from which the Authority withdraws water. The Authority has a water use permit (WUP) from the Southwest Florida Water Management District that both gives the Authority the right to withdraw water from the Peace River and sets conditions on those withdrawals. Thus, as an entity possessed of a legal right to withdraw water from the Peace River, the Authority inarguably has a substantial interest in the river’s environmental integrity, and this interest could be injured by changes in the flow of Horse Creek into the Peace River. See Royal Palm Square Ass’n v. Sevco Land Corp., 623 So.2d 533, 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) . Further, the potential injury asserted by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest
B. holding that a property owner who had the right to drain water into a specific lake had a substantial interest in that lakes environmental integrity and thus had a substantial interest in a permit that could alter the drainage into that lake
C. holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity
D. holding that the tribes are the beneficial owners of the south half of flathead lake and that tribal ownership encompasses the lake bed to the high water mark
E. holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.