In Danforth v. United States, 308 U.S. 271, 60 S.Ct. 231, 84 L.Ed. 240 (1939), the Supreme Court held that the mere enactment of legislation which authorizes condemnation could not be a taking, because "such legislation may be repealed or modified, or appropriations may fail." 308 U.S. at 286, 60 S.Ct. at 237. The Court went on to hold that for an action to constitute a taking, "it must result in an appropriation of the property to the uses of the Government." Id. In Danforth, the United States condemned the landowner's property pursuant to the Flood Control Act of May 15, 1928, 33 U.S.C. Secs. 702a-702m (1976). The government proceeded by petitioning for condemnation without entering into prior possession. The Supreme Court held that under those circumstances, where there had been no previous taking "in actuality or by a statutory provision, which fixes the time of taking by an event ...," that "the taking in a condemnation suit under this statute took place upon the payment of the money award by the condemnor," and that no interest was due on the award. 308 U.S. at 284, 60 S.Ct. at 236. The Court reasoned: Until taking, the condemnor may discontinue or abandon his effort. The determination of the award is an offer subject to acceptance by the condemnor and thus gives to the user of the sovereign power of eminent domain an opportunity to determine whether the valuations leave the cost of completion within his resources. Condemnation is a means by which the sovereign may find out what any piece of property will cost. "The owner is protected by the rule that title does not pass until compensation has been ascertained and paid, ..." A reduction or increase in the value of property may occur by reason of legislation for or the beginning or completion of a project. Such changes in value are incidents of ownership. They cannot be considered as a "taking" in the constitutional sense. Id. at 284-85, 60 S.Ct. at 236.