Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., 117 F.3d 1414 at *3 (4th Cir.1997) (“[b]y definition ... § 6972(a)(1)(B) excludes waste that no longer presents a danger.”); See also Price v. United States Navy, 39 F.3d 1011, 1019 (9th Cir.1994) (finding that since plaintiff could not show soils under its house presented any threat to public health or environment, RCRA claim could not stand). In Leister, the Court found that plaintiffs failed to show imminent and substantial threat of harm to human health simply by pointing to the presence of a pollutant on their dairy farm, because drinking water from the well was the “most direct pathway of exposure,” but a filtration system had eliminated any threat. Id.; accord Two Rivers Terminal, L.P. v. Chevron USA, Inc., 96 F.Supp.2d 432, 446 (M.D.Pa.2000) . . Similarly, Defendant cites to Tilot Oil,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a connection between surface and groundwater even where the water table falls below the stream bed
B. recognizing that coverage could be triggered by need to prevent imminent contamination of groundwater
C. holding that village could not condition provision of water services on annexation where prospective customer was within a rural water associations service area and the water association was federally indebted
D. holding that mere presence of contaminants in groundwater could not prove imminent and substantial endangerment to human health where no one was drinking the 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.