With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to Masontown’s new sewer system and the resulting abandonment of Appellants’ septic systems constitute a taking for constitutional purposes. This Court long ago recognized that “[u]ncompensated obedience to a regulation enacted for the public safety, or which may hereafter be enacted, under the police power of the state, is not a taking or damaging without just compensation of private property, or private property affected with a public interest.” Syllabus Point 7, City of Welch v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 104 W.Va. 660, 140 S.E. 839 (1927). Clearly, it is within the police power of the State to regulate sewer systems and to delegate this power to subordinate public entities such as municipalities. See West Virginia Water Service Co. v. Cunningham, 143 W.Va. 1, 98 S.E.2d 891 (1957) (<HOLDING>). In Kingmill Valley Public Serv. v. Riverview,

A: recognizing absolute immunity for attorneys and board members of the texas medical board
B: holding that a municipal ordinance creating a sanitary board and authorizing this board to contract for the construction of a sewage system is within the police power of the state
C: holding that an appeal to an agency review board would be futile because the board lacked authority to invalidate ordinance as requested
D: recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing
B.