Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
River. The trial court overruled appellee’s exceptions, finding no case holding access to navigable water prevents property from being landlocked. Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/08, at 3. An en banc Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, finding the Board should have considered evidence regarding river access. In re: Private Road in Speers Boro, II, Washington County, No. 1016 C.D. 2008, unpublished memorandum at 13-14 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed November 20, 2009). The court further noted the Monongahela River has long been considered a public highway and “place of necessary resort,” and other jurisdictions have considered water access in determining whether necessity exists. Id., at 12-13 (citing Balliet v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. 509, 514 (1851); In re Daniel, 656 N.W.2d 543, 546 (Minn.2003) ). Thus, the court concluded, “a proper
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream
B. holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity
C. holding that retention of some access rights  does not preclude a per se taking
D. holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
E. holding such agreements to be per se illegal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.