With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". River. The trial court overruled appellee’s exceptions, finding no case holding access to navigable water prevents property from being landlocked. Trial Court Opinion, 5/19/08, at 3. An en banc Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded, finding the Board should have considered evidence regarding river access. In re: Private Road in Speers Boro, II, Washington County, No. 1016 C.D. 2008, unpublished memorandum at 13-14 (Pa.Cmwlth. filed November 20, 2009). The court further noted the Monongahela River has long been considered a public highway and “place of necessary resort,” and other jurisdictions have considered water access in determining whether necessity exists. Id., at 12-13 (citing Balliet v. Commonwealth, 17 Pa. 509, 514 (1851); In re Daniel, 656 N.W.2d 543, 546 (Minn.2003) (<HOLDING>)). Thus, the court concluded, “a proper

A: holding that denial of access per se is noncompensable
B: holding access to property by navigable lake was per se bar to finding of necessity
C: holding that retention of some access rights  does not preclude a per se taking
D: holding lake on private land was not navigable in fact and there was no right of public use and enjoyment as lake was not fed by or part of a navigable stream
B.