With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the de facto condemnee must carry to establish unreasonableness. Accord ASAP Storage, Inc. v. City of Sparks, 173 P.3d 734, 741 (Nev.2007) (“Although appellants correctly contend that the City’s hindrance of a landowner’s right to access his or her land could rise to the level of a taking, the duration of any such impairment plays a significant role in determining whether the impairment substantially interferes with the owner’s right to access his or her property.”). See generally id. (finding that no substantial interference with access occurred for purposes of the state constitution’s takings clause where the city prohibited the plaintiff from accessing its property during a 48-hour emergency period); Rocky Mountain Thrift Stores v. Salt Lake City, 784 P.2d 459, 465 (Utah 1989) (<HOLDING>). As applied to the present case (and as

A: holding that the federal government was liable for a taking of property where city of burlington acted under federal authority
B: holding that the public use exception was not applicable because the injury to the tenants employee occurred in an area of the leased premises that was not open to the public but was used only by employees
C: holding that no taking occurred where the government in an effort to manage flood waters precluded vehicular access to the city block on which the plaintiff business was located but the inhibition lasted only 15 days and was a onetime occurrence
D: holding that inverse condemnation claim challenging as a regulatory taking the states placement of a guard rail that blocked former access was not ripe for adjudication where owners had failed to apply for permit for alternative approach and it therefore was not possible to assess whether a taking had occurred as a result of a deprivation of all reasonable access
C.