Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
2. Thus, the RLCWA has satisfied the pipes-in-the-ground test. The parties disagree, however, over whether the RLCWA has the legal right to serve Fox Run. Ohio law gives water districts plenary authority “[t]o supply water to users within and without the district.” Le-Ax, 346 F.3d at 707 (quoting O.R.C. § 6119.01(A)). Because the RLCWA is a regional water district in the State of Ohio, and because Fox Run is located within the RLCWA’s service district, the Court concludes that the RLCWA has the legal right to serve Fox Run. Id. While Grafton admits that “Fox Run was an area within the water district served by RLCWA and was included in the or exation of land within area served by water district did not act to remove that land from water district’s service area). Cf. Wayne, 36 F.3d 517 ; Lexington-South Elkhom, 93 F.3d 230 (holding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
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  1926b prohibited munici pality from using its annexation of territory within rural water district as springboard for providing its own water service to residents
D. 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
E. holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.