Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that if the appropriator does not own the land he intends to irrigate, at least rightful possession - that is, a possessory interest - is necessary to his acquisition of a valid water right. This requirement is satisfied by lawful entry and settlement on public lands or a bona fide intent to acquire title to both land and water, or by one holding lands under contract for its purchase. Also acceptable is rightful possession of land under a contract with the owner the nature of which does not appear in the record. Hutchins, at 263-64. See also In re Powder River Drainage Area, 216 Mont. 361, 702 P.2d 948 (1895) (validating stockwater rights appropriated by lessees on and for use on school trust land, even though ownership accrued to state); Sayre v. Johnson, 33 Mont. 15, 81 P. 389 (1905) ; Bullerdick v. Hermsmeyer, 32 Mont 541, 81 P.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that appropriation protects the right of an earlier appropriator to the extent of his beneficial use against a later appropriator
B. holding that land that is permanently appropriated to an inconsistent use is abandoned
C. holding that subsequent patent did not convey lands that had previously been appropriated it is a familiar principle of public land law that statutes providing generally for disposal of the public domain are inapplicable to lands which are not unqualifiedly subject to sale and disposition because they have been appropriated to some other purpose the general words of the granting act are to be read as subject to such exception
D. recognizing validity of water right appropriated to irrigate land appropriator only occupied on public domain
E. recognizing validity of water rights appropriated on public domain for use on school trust land even though appropriator did not own or intend to patent place of use
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.