Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by the agency’s power to bring suit to require compliance. Another example of this usage, albeit in a slightly different context, appears in the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Water Act; under this statute, suits may not be instituted by individuals or organizations if the EPA or the appropriate state enforcement authority “has commenced and is diligently pursuing a civil or criminal action ... to require compliance” with the Act’s substantive provisions. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Despite this reference to “requir[ing] compliance” in the statutory language, the Supreme Court held in Romero-Barcelo that the Clean Water Act does not require the issuance of an injunction in all cases where a statutory violation has been identified. 456 U.S. at 313, 102 S.Ct. 1798 . These examples demonstrate that a statutory
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable
B. holding so under circumstances similar to the present ones
C. holding that neither the language of the statute nor its legislative history suggests that appointment is permissible only in some limited set of circumstances
D. holding that the grant of jurisdiction to ensure compliance with a statute hardly suggests a duty to do so under any and all circumstances
E. holding that substantial compliance with notice is sufficient
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.