With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". potential access to water to perform the Supply Agreements since the City also took the Utility’s position in the Water Purchase Agreement with the Crowders. The PRC would no longer regulate the Utility or the City. This set of circumstances does not implicate any compensable damage to property. The Landowners’ claims are not ripe and they do not have standing to litigate the basic issues of the condemnation. Pub. Sew. Co., 98 N.M. at 136-37, 646 P.2d at 563-65 (upholding refusal of intervention in condemnation action by adjacent property on basis that aesthetic considerations, loss of view, interference with television and radio reception and noise and hum were not compensable as a matter of law); PDR Dev. Corp. v. City of Santa Fe, 120 N.M. 224, 226, 900 P.2d 973, 975 (Ct.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). {74} In fact, at this point the condemnation

A: holding that loss of an arm includes loss of the hand
B: holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding
C: holding that loss of profits from contingent sales contracts were not compensable in inverse condemnation where landowner asserted that zoning action had resulted in loss of a chance to sell the property
D: holding that proof of loss is not evidence of extent of loss and insured is not precluded from showing his damages were greater than shown in proof of loss
C.