Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a water association has “made service available.” Although the water association in North Shelby had never actually “provided” water service to the disputed area, the court found that it had “made service available” to potential customers by virtue of the proximity of the water association’s distribution lines to the disputed area. Id. at 22. Additionally, the court held that even though the water association’s distribution lines were simply “adjacent to,” but not “within” that property, the water association had still made service available. Moreover, the water association in North Shelby was capable of providing such service within a “reasonable” time after application was made for the service. Id.; See also Lexington-South Elkhorn Water District, 93 F.3d 230, 237 (6th Cir.1996) ; Glenpool Util. Services Authority v. Creek
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the existence of a seizure is determined by whether an individuals movement is restricted by means implemented with the intent to produce that result
B. holding that determination of whether an official was acting on behalf of the state or the local government is determined by state law
C. holding that the right of the debtor to claim property as exempt is generally determined on the facts as they exist on the date of the filing of the petition
D. holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service
E. holding that whether an association has made service available is determined based on the existence of facilities on or in the proximity of the location to be served
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.