Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Swansea (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 759, 763-65, 371 N.E.2d 1155, 1157 (sewer rate classifications). We conclude that the trial court did not apply an incorrect standard in reviewing Chicago’s ordinance in the first instance. Because it is plaintiffs’ “heavy burden” to overcome the presumptive validity of the ordinance, it follows that they must also demonstrate that the rates charged them are discriminatory, unreasonable, or arbitrary, by a clear and affirmative showing. If it were Chicago’s burden to prove the reasonableness of its rates in the first instance, the presumptive validity of the ordinance would be nullified. Nevertheless, Chicago did produce affirmative evidence of the reasonableness of its rates. Cf. Bobrowicz v. City of Chicago (1988), 168 Ill. App. 3d 227, 522 N.E.2d 663 , appeal denied (1988), 122 Ill. 2d 570, 530
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that simply because claimants had diverted the entire run of the water at issue did not give them the ability to claim a right to all the water when they could not and had not put it to beneficial use
B. holding substantial completion had occurred because water district took possession of all the lines filled them with water and began using them to serve the customers of the water district
C. holding that chicagos 50 surcharge on water sales to nonresident consumers violated its common law duty not to charge unreasonable or discriminatory rates to those customers to whom the city had undertaken to provide water
D. holding district court had no jurisdiction over citys decision to shut off customers water
E. holding that article x  2 of the california constitution dictates the basic principles defining water rights that no one can have a protectible interest in the unreasonable use of water and that holders of water rights must use water reasonably and beneficially
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.