With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Conservancy Dist. v. Board of County Comm’rs of Arapahoe County, 841 P.2d 1061, 1065 (Colo.1992) (requirement of diligence prevents “ ‘the accumulation of conditional water rights without diligent efforts to complete the projects to the detriment of those needing and seeking to make immediate beneficial use of the same water’”) (quoting CRWCD v. Denver, 640 P.2d at 1141). Such concerns were particularly relevant in the present case due to the large quantities of unappropriated water claimed by Thornton and the conflicting evidence concerning Thornton’s projected needs and its possible speculative intent. This court has identified speculative intent as a factor for consideration in diligence determinations. Public Serv. Co. v. Blue River Irrigation Co., 829 P.2d 1276, 1280 (Colo. 1992) (<HOLDING>). Under the facts and circumstances of the

A: holding that the reasonableness inquiry is based upon the totality of the circumstances in determining whether or not a search was reasonable
B: holding that the trial court properly considered an objectors claim that the applicant exhibited an intent to hoard as part of the totality of the circumstances in its reasonable diligence determination
C: holding that a determination of unfair discrimination requires a court to consider all aspects of the case and the totality of all the circumstances
D: recognizing that totality of circumstances must be considered in determining permissible inferences
B.