I would highly suggest that you find out if there are any rights to the water. Here, almost every ditch, stream, etc. has water rights that are owned by water companies and/or individuals. You usually have to purchase water shares.
If you pull water from the stream it could be illegal depending on if there are water rights on the stream.
I know in some areas of the country if water runs through your property you have the right to use it but not here in Colorado. You need to check your local laws and property rights concerning water.

Water law is the most complicated area of law. Some parts of the country, mostly western, are under Spanish water law, the eastern part of the country tends to be under English water law. If you were in Colorado you could bet that somebody owns the water flowing through your property. If you were in Massachusetts you might be able to use the water. In Missouri I don't know if you would be under Spanish, or English law. In either case the only way to find out is to consult a water lawyer, which is a specialty. Your family lawyer probably won't know the answer.

If the amount of water used is small, and the diversion is not obvious to others, you might get away with the you-can-apologize-later approach. One advantage of water law being so complicated is that very few people would know for sure that you shouldn't be using the water, if that is even the case.

Hello,
Here in N.TX we have property with a creek, You can use the water as long as you do not impede or obstruct the flow to others. In other words, We can use the water in the creek for whatever purpose we want as long as it keeps flowing, we could not build a dam to make a pond, but we could divert water to a pond, as long as people downstream are still getting water flow. We have a local county water board, you probably have a similar entity that you could ask about water rights. I definitely would find out before I did anything with the water.
Good Luck.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry for Water Law:

Water law in the United States

In the United States there are complex legal systems for allocating water rights that vary by region. These varying systems exist for both historical and geographic reasons.

[edit] Riparian Rights

The Eastern states (all those east of Texas, but for Mississippi), follow the riparian doctrine, which permits anyone whose land has frontage on a body of water to use water from it. These states were the first settled by Europeans (and therefore most influenced by English law) and have the most available water.

[edit] Prior Appropriation

Most western states, naturally drier, generally follow the prior appropriation doctrine, which gives a water right to whoever first puts water to beneficial use. Colorado water law is generally looked to as authority by other Western states that follow the prior appropriation doctrine. Water law in the western United States is defined by state constitutions (i.e. Colorado, New Mexico) statutes, and case law. Each state exhibits variations upon the basic principles of the prior appropriation doctrine. Texas and the states directly north of it; the West Coast states, and Mississippi have a mixture of systems. Hawaii uses a form of riparian rights, and Alaska uses appropriation-based rights.

In some states Surface water, lakes, rivers, and springs, is treated differently from ground water underground water extracted by drilling wells; however, In other states surface and ground water are managed conjunctively. For example, in New Mexico, surface and ground water have been managed together since the 1950s. This trend comes from a growing scientific understanding of the formerly mysterious behavior of underground water systems. For instance, gradual contamination of some water supplies with salt has been explained with the knowledge that drawing water from a well creates a gradual seepage into the well area, potentially contaminating it and surrounding areas with seawater from a nearby coast. Such knowledge is useful for understanding the effects of human activity on water supplies but can also create new sources of conflict.

A variety of federal, state, and local laws govern water rights. One issue unique to America is the law of water with respect to American Indians.

"My thought was, pull water directly from the creek with a large electric trash pump (3" pipe connection") that I already have, feed the 'head waters' pond with creek water, and once the water gets to the bottom of the run, drain back into the original creek. I would also use small pumps to distribute the water from the head water pond around the garden paths as a means of irrigation."

Is this legal- to the best of my knowledge, no. You might want to consider contacting the Army Corps of Engineers on this one right out the gate as consulting with an attorney who concentrates in this area of law ($$$) might be moot given my thoughts are that the Army Corps has jurisdiction and will most probably be deeming this a big no no. Alternatively, you might want to consider contacting the Water Protection and Soil Conservation Division of the MDNR, they would probably also be able to definitively answer your question. Good that you had the foresight to question this type of an act prior to dropping an inlet pipe in to extract water for a manmade pond or any other use as if my suspicions are correct and what you propose is a no no... I would be of the humble opinion that it might not be in your best interests to attempt a "you-can-apologize-later approach". They're quite sophisticated monitoring natural resources these days and aerial photography overlays are increasingly being utilized to protect same. Regardless of your pump sizes; there will be concerns associated with diminished dilution capacity and flow reduction of the creek as well as sediment entrapment, temperature alteration, and scouring of the creekbed to cite a few. Watershed management issues are nothing to mess with based on my limited experiences in this arena.

Any reason why you wouldn't be in a position to fill a pond by ordering a tanker or by slowly filling it with your own city/well water?

Hi
when they say these laws are "complex " is sort of like saying the universe is "large" lol
I'm in Florida which uses riparian law BUT much has changed due to severe drought. where normally the area of concern is too much water it has switched in reverse. It is still possible to own water but many new restrictions have been put on holding ,selling and diverting.
In your case another aspect of your idea to consider would it impede native wildlife?? Would it release non native species and or pathogens ??
The first thing to do is check with you state fish and game.. They won't have all the answers but will point you in the right direction.. My guess it would require a license definitely a permit if only for construction.
Definitely follow the legal path Fines can be levied by city state,county and even the federal government.
Enjoy the hassle lol gary

Wetlands, Water Quality, and our World

I think that about sums it up. I doubt seriously if this creek will be determined to be an isolated intrastate wetland. Although the Corps' authority was limited in a Supreme Court Decision in which navigable water was defined, I believe they will ultimately be the entity with which one would be dealing should the intent be to follow through with a plan as outlined in the first post.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Contact Us

If MO has water laws similar to Iowa, This might help you. In Iowa , the state allows you to pump a certain amount of water without a permit.

Here is a link that might be useful: Iowa Dept of Natural Resources

If you google "A Summary of MO Water Laws" & look at Publication001350 you will have your answer.

Great find txgdnr! Here's your url-

Pub001350

Confusing as all get out if one is not familiar with the Supreme Court ruling of 2001. The second to the last paragraph in the publication you located online certainly does appear to toss it back in the lap of the Corps. It stood to reason they would have jurisdiction given I've never run into a 20' wide creek classified as an isolated intrastate wetland. Feds always trump State.

Excerpt from Pub001350 below-

"What if my property includes wetlands
Some wetlands are regulated by the federal government. There are no state laws that are not tied back specifically to federal laws. If the wetland is near a stream with a defined bed and banks, then the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, may have jurisdiction. The Water Resources Center is located on the Web at www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wrc/wrphp.htm";