Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
bring a RCRA ISE claim is evidence that the defendant’s discharges, and Little Hocking’s reasonable concerns about the effects of those discharges, directly affected its economic interests in running a water distribution Facility. If this Court or a jury finds that Defendant is liable under RCRA for the environmental contamination of Plaintiffs Wellfield, then Plaintiffs injury may be redressed through injunctive relief. 2. Notice Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count I because Plaintiff failed to meet mandatory pre-filing notice requirements under 42 U.S.C.A. § 6972(b)(1)(A) in order to make a claim under § 6972(a)(1)(A) for violations of RCRA. See Sierra Club Ohio Chapter v. City of Columbus, 282 F.Supp.2d 756, 763 (S.D.Ohio 2003) (Marb-ley, J) . Specifically, Defendant argues that Plaintiff
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that late notice of the bond did not excuse supplier from its obligation to comply with statutory notice requirements
B. holding that clean water acts notice provision is a condition precedent to all claims
C. holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit
D. holding notice provision in rcra and clean water act are virtually identical and citizens notice to violators under either act must strictly comply with statutory notice requirements
E. holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.