Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 821.0

529US3

Unit: $U57

[09-26-01 12:19:03] PAGES PGT: OPIN

746

PUBLIC LANDS COUNCIL v. BABBITT

Opinion of the Court

ness, bona ﬁde occupants or settlers.”
Ibid. And this stat-
utory language has been extremely important in practice.
See supra, at 734–735.

The ranchers nonetheless contend that the deletion of the
term “engaged in the livestock business” violates the statu-
tory limitation to “stock owners” in § 315b. The words
“stock owner,” they say, meant “commercial stock owner” in
1934, and a commercial stock owner is not simply one who
owns livestock, but one who engages in the business.
Hence, they argue, the Secretary lacks the authority to allow
those who are not engaged in the business to apply for
permits.

The words “stock owner” and “stock owner engaged in the
livestock business,” however, are not obvious synonyms.
And we have found no convincing indication that Congress
intended that we treat them as such. Just two sentences
after using the words “stock owner,” Congress said that,
among those eligible for permits (i. e., stock owners), prefer-
ence should be given to “landowners engaged in the livestock
business, bona ﬁde occupants or settlers, or owners of water
or water rights.” § 315b (emphasis added). Why would
Congress add the words “engaged in the livestock business”
if (as the ranchers’ argument implies) they add nothing? Cf.
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 36 (1992)
(“[A] statute must, if possible, be construed in such fashion
that every word has some operative effect”). The legisla-
tive history to which the ranchers point shows that Congress
expected that ordinarily permit holders would be ranchers,
who do engage in the livestock business, but does not show
any such absolute requirement. See, e. g., H. R. Rep.
No. 903, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 2 (1934); Hearings on H. R. 2835
and H. R. 6462 before the House Committee on the Public
Lands, 73d Cong., 1st and 2d Sess., 96 (1933–1934); Hearings
on H. R. 6462 before the Senate Committee on Public Lands
and Surveys, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 40 (1934). Nor does the
statute’s basic purpose require that the two sets of different