With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [appellant] could not have lawfully erected the bridge even if he had obtained the proper permit from the federal government. See id. Accordingly, because the federal regulatory scheme clearly envisions the right of the State to grant or withhold its permission, the two regulatory schemes do not conflict. In the absence of a conflict, the Supremacy Clause does not nullify the State’s regulatory authority over the navigable waters within its boundaries. See Hillsborough County, Fla. [v. Auto. Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)]. Trice v. State, 712 S.W.2d 842, 848-49 (Tex.App.-Waco 1986, writ ref d n.r.e.); see also Brownsville & Matamoros Municipal Bridge Co. v. Gateway Bridge Co., 2 S.W.2d 1012, 1013-14 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1928, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the International Bridge Act does not

A: recognizing the rule that whenever possible statutes should be read in harmony and not in conflict with each other
B: holding there is no authority to toll statute of limitations based on mental incompetence
C: recognizing conflict
D: recognizing that state and federal governments each exercise authority in granting approval to construct international toll bridge over rio grande and stating that there is no conflict of any statutes involved
D.