Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to the SDWA, regardless of whether it ever installs a filtration system. In essence, the water system’s compliance with the avoidance criteria makes the water safe from the EPA’s perspective — a point conceded by the United States at trial. We fail to see how accomplishment of the Act’s substantive goals is undermined by overlooking past violations of regulatory deadlines that have no bearing on the current or future purity of the water delivered to consumers. See Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 310, 102 S.Ct. 1798 (noting that purpose of injunctive relief is to deter future violations, not to punish past ones) (citing Hecht Co., 321 U.S. at 329-30, 64 S.Ct. 587); cf. Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 192, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000)  (emphasis added). Moreover, given that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court had discretion under clean water act to determine which form of relief is best suited in the particular case to abate current violations and deter future ones
B. holding that adequate notice is a mandatory precondition of a clean water act citizen suit
C. holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act
D. holding that denial of permit under section 404 of the clean water act was a taking
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.