Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
communications were similar. Each communicated its desires and opinions to a governmental entity with regulatory authority to take action affecting the property. Like SARA in relation to San Antonio, the TWDB made its opinion known to the Corps but had no authority to take the action affecting the owner’s property rights. SARA further sought a cooperation agreement between it and San Antonio. As Westgate’s focus on direct action implies, causation is an issue to be considered by Courts in takings cases. This is not the first time courts have addressed causation in a takings action. In 1941, we held that the “true test” is whether the State’s intentional acts “were the proximate cause of the taking or damaging of such property.” State v. Hale, 136 Tex. 29, 146 S.W.2d 731, 737 (1941) ; see Roberson v. City of Austin, 157 S.W.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the installation of catv facilities on plaintiffs property to be a physical taking
B. holding that invasion of an identifiable customers account is not a necessary element proof under the statute
C. holding that under delaware law the policys definition of personal injury as wrongful entry or eviction or other invasion of the right of private occupancy applies only to damages incurred as a result of an invasion of an interest in real property
D. holding that a direct physical invasion of the property was not necessary under the 1876 constitution for a taking to occur
E. holding intent as an essential element to an invasion of privacy by intrusion and not listing intent as a required element of invasion of privacy by publication
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.