Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
User is the requisite element, and it may be by any who have occasion to travel over public lands, and if the use be by only one, still it suffices. (quoting Leach v. Manhart, 102 Colo. 129, 77 P.2d 652, 653 (1938)); accord, Barker v. County of La Plata, 49 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1214 (D.Colo.1999). See also Wallowa County v. Wade, 43 Or. 253, 72 P. 793, 794 (1903) (affirming R.S. 2477 claim’ despite the servient landowner’s showing that “the road over the land inclosed by him had never been worked or improved by the county authorities, or under their direction”); Fitzgerald v. Puddicombe, 918 P.2d 1017, 1020 (Alaska 1996) (“[n]or does the route need to be significantly developed to qualify as a ‘highway’ for RS 2477 purposes”); Ball v. Stephens, 68 Cal.App.2d 843, 158 P.2d 207, 209 (1945) . Consistent with our conclusion that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
B. recognizing rs 2477 right of way even though it was never improved or maintained by the county
C. holding that county commissioners court that had adopted order designating roads to be improved if bond issue carried could not designate other roads to be improved with proceeds of bonds after election contrary to the will of those having to bear the bond burden
D. holding that the grant county prosecutor had a statutory duty to be legal advisor to the county clerk even though she was not embroiled in litigation in which the county was the real party in interest
E. recognizing that the plaintiff has the right to file suit in any permissible county
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.