Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
flooding, which has, among other things, damaged their home. On June 15, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (Count I), as well as nuisance, trespass, and negligence under Illinois law (Counts II-IV)- Count I is brought under the “citizen suit” provision of the Clean Water Act. At least 60 days before filing their Clean Water Act citizen suit, Plaintiffs were required to give notice of the alleged violation to (1) the EPA, (2) the state in which the alleged violation occurs, and (3) the alleged violator. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1) (“[n]o action may be commenced” without notice to the EPA, the state, and the alleged violator); see also, e.g., Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31, 110 S.Ct. 304, 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989) ; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that compliance with analogous notice provision of the resource conservation and recovery act rcra was a mandatory condition precedent to suit
B. holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit
C. holding this requirement to be a precondition to obtaining intercept authority
D. holding that an identical notice requirement in resource conservation and recovery act was a mandatory precondition to suit
E. holding that the 30day notice of appeal requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.