“The law that he is actually violating is not the 1925 provision, but it’s Oregon law that says all of the water in the state of Oregon is public water and if you want to use that water, either to divert it or to store it, you have to acquire a water right from the state of Oregon before doing that activity,” Paul told CNSNews.com.
For me this is the money quote, it’s all about money and control.
When I bought my homestead here in Kentucky, I made darn sure that I owned all of the “rights”, Water, Mineral and Timber. In this part of the country I am amazed at how much of the land has had the timber rights sold off. And that means that you DO NOT own any trees on your property.
As other posters have noted this has been litigated gazillions of times. The guy who put in ponds doesn't have a chance of winning. Just isn't going to happen.
In Kentucky things are different.
BTW, except for land with considerable mineral wealth when you get into the areas governed by Western water rights law land isn't worth anything without a water right.
That's one of the reasons you find Western cities and towns having 6 to 12 lane roadways all over the place. The land was cheap.
If you move to one of those states make sure you buy a place to live with water rights or rights to access from a municipal provider. Else you'll waste your money.