Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as an “an unlawful act under subsection (a) of section 1311 of this title.” See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f)(1). In turn, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.” The term “the discharge of any pollutant” is defined as the “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), while “navigable waters” is defined as “the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas,” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). Congress intended the latter term to be given “the broadest constitutional interpretation.” United States v. Rivera Torres, 826 F.2d 151, 154 (1st Cir.1987) (quoting Conference Report on Section 2770, reprinted in 1 A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 178) . Yet, it is unclear whether or not a river
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that regulations pur porting to reach wetlands whose degradation or destruction could affect interstate or foreign commerce were beyond statutory authorization because they would include intrastate waters that need have nothing to do with navigable or interstate waters
B. holding that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are included in the term territorial waters
C. holding that a worker injured on actual navigable waters in the course of employment is covered under the lhwca
D. holding that federal maritime law and not state law applies to all actions for wrongful death in navigable state waters
E. holding that the evident breadth of congressional coneern for protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems supported the army corps of engineers interpretation of waters of the united states to encompass wetlands adjacent to waters as more conventionally defined
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.