# ESA Letter in Williston, ND: Read the Exclusion Backwards

> An ESA letter in Williston needs no North Dakota provider. NDCC 47-16-07.5 excludes a certificate mill — not a clinician who happens to live elsewhere.

- Source: https://supportanimal.com/blog/north-dakota-emotional-support-animal/williston/
- Publisher: Support Animal (supportanimal.com)
- Updated: 2026-09-05
- License note: informational content; not legal or medical advice.

## Key facts

- Population: 28,821
- Households renting: 52.9%
- Typical pet deposit (as a pet): Excluded by 47-16-07.1(2)
- Typical pet rent (as a pet): No state cap on pet rent
- Breed/weight limits common: sometimes
- Pet fees, deposits, and breed limits with a valid ESA letter: none (FHA reasonable accommodation)

## Half the town rents, and much of it arrived from somewhere else

Williston has 6,012 renting households out of 11,360 occupied homes, **52.9
percent** on the 2020–2024 American Community Survey five-year estimate,
seventh-highest of North Dakota's twenty largest cities. Median gross rent
is **$1,122**, second only to Watford City's $1,336 among the figures in
this state large enough to be reliable, and a hundred and sixty-eight
dollars above the $954 statewide median. The 2024 Census estimate puts the
city at 28,821, sixth in North Dakota.

Those are Bakken numbers. Williams County built rental stock quickly for
people who came here to work, and a great many Williston renters still have
a doctor, a counsellor or a clinic somewhere else: Minnesota, Montana,
Texas, wherever the job was before this one.

So the question that comes up at a Williston leasing office is rarely
whether the animal is allowed. It is whether the letter counts when the
person who wrote it has never set foot in North Dakota.

North Dakota has a sentence about exactly that, and nearly everybody reads
it backwards.

## The sentence

**NDCC 47-16-07.5**: the section that tells a landlord what may be demanded and who may write it:

> "A landlord may require reliable supporting documentation be provided by a tenant of a rental
> dwelling that is subject to a no pets policy, if the tenant asserts a disability requiring a
> service animal or assistance animal be allowed as an accommodation on the rented premises under
> any provision of law. Reliable supporting documentation may be provided by a physician or medical
> professional **who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or
> assistance animals**. Reliable supporting documentation must confirm the tenant's disability and
> the relationship between the tenant's disability and the need for the requested accommodation. A
> landlord may not require supporting documentation from a tenant if the tenant's disability or
> disability-related need for a service animal or assistance animal is readily apparent or already
> known to the landlord."

## The clause is a double negative, and the direction matters

Take the bolded words apart. The statute does not say the writer must
operate in North Dakota. It says the writer must **not** be someone who
operates in this state **solely** to provide certification for service or
assistance animals.

Three words carry that. *Not.* *In this state.* *Solely.*

A clinician licensed in Minnesota who treats patients, keeps records and
forms a professional view does not operate in North Dakota solely to certify
animals. They do not operate in North Dakota at all, and even if they did,
certifying animals would not be the whole of it. The description misses them
by a wide margin.

"North Dakota requires a North Dakota provider" is the most common way to get this section wrong.
It is a sentence about a *kind of business*, not about a *state line*.

## Who the clause was written to exclude

Picture the operation it does describe. It exists in North Dakota. Its North
Dakota activity is issuing certification for service or assistance animals.
That is the entirety of what it does here. No treatment, no file, no view
formed about any particular person: a fee, a form and a PDF.

That outfit is outside the sentence. Its paper is not "reliable supporting documentation" under
47-16-07.5, and a Williston landlord who has read the section is entitled to say so.

The exclusion is aimed at the certificate trade. A renter who moved to
Williston for a rig job and kept their clinician back home is not who the
legislature was worried about.

## Three things the section does not say

**It does not require a North Dakota licence.** The words "licensed in this state" appear nowhere
in it. The only limit on the writer is the exclusion above.

**It does not require an in-person visit.** Some states wrote that rule, Florida's § 760.27
conditions out-of-state documentation on in-person care. North Dakota did not. Nothing in
47-16-07.5 addresses how the professional saw the tenant.

**It does not name a form, a card, a registry or a renewal date.** North Dakota has none of those
for housing. What it names is a person, "a physician or medical professional", and a finding.

## The part of the same sentence that does bite

Having given away the writer's location, the statute gets strict about content. Documentation
"must confirm the tenant's disability **and** the relationship between the tenant's disability and
the need for the requested accommodation."

That is two findings. Not one.

The first is a conclusion about a person. The second is a conclusion about a
person *and this animal*: that the accommodation answers something the
disability creates. A document that says a condition exists and stops there
has done the easy half. In practice it is the half that gets skipped,
because it is the half you can write without knowing anything about the
tenant.

Distance does not weaken either finding. An absent file does.

## What the deposit looks like at Williston rents

**NDCC 47-16-07.1(2)** lets a landlord charge a pet security deposit "for keeping an animal that is
not a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable
accommodation under fair housing laws," and caps it at the greater of $2,500 or two months' rent.

Run the arithmetic on Williston's $1,122 median. Two months is $2,244, which
is under $2,500, so the ceiling on an ordinary pet deposit here is
**$2,500**, more than twice the ordinary security deposit cap of one month's
rent under 47-16-07.1(1).

Then notice that the ceiling is not your ceiling. The subsection describes a
deposit for an animal that *is not* the accommodation animal. When
47-16-07.5 documentation is in the file, the animal is the one the
subsection excludes, and the question of the cap never arises.

The exclusion runs on the documentation. That is why the documentation is
worth doing properly.

## The paper that fails both tests

**NDCC 47-16-07.6** makes it an **infraction** (North Dakota's lowest offence grade), to
knowingly make a false disability claim or knowingly supply fraudulent supporting documentation in
order to obtain an accommodation under 47-16-07.5.

A purchased certificate walks into both problems at once. It is worthless
under 07.5, because the seller is the operation the exclusion clause
describes. And it is the object 07.6 was written about.

## Where the evaluation actually comes from

Start with a clinician who already treats you. If you kept a real
relationship with a provider in the state you moved from, that is the
strongest and cheapest route, and the statute does not care where they sit.

Its friction here is specific. Williston's workforce turns over, and a care
relationship left behind two moves ago is often no longer a relationship at
all. Williams County has thin independent practice capacity, specialist
mental-health care in North Dakota concentrates in Bismarck and Fargo, and a
professional who saw you twice years ago may properly decline to make a
disability finding rather than make one they cannot support. All three of
those are real, and none of them is a reason to buy a certificate.

Where that route is closed, a licensed evaluation is the opposite of a
certificate in every way the statute cares about. Someone licensed examines
whether a disability exists, then examines whether this animal answers a
need the disability creates, then records both findings, or declines and
says why. The possibility of the second ending is what makes the first one
worth anything.

North Dakota wrote a sentence to keep documentation-for-sale out of its
housing law. It did not write one to keep your clinician out. Read the
clause in the direction it points.

## What Williston landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not refuse a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services where the accommodation may be necessary to afford an individual with a disability equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling: NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b).
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, or in the services and facilities provided with it: NDCC 14-02.5-06(2).
- May not charge a pet security deposit for a service animal or companion animal required by a tenant with a disability as a reasonable accommodation under fair housing laws, NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) excludes that animal by name.
- May not demand or receive security, however denominated, in excess of one month's rent, except for a felony-conviction incentive or where a judgment has been entered for violating a previous rental agreement: NDCC 47-16-07.1(1).
- May not require that the documentation come from a North Dakota clinician. The statute excludes a provider who operates in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals; it does not require an in-state one, NDCC 47-16-07.5.
- May not claim the thousand-dollar damage fee or the eviction right in NDCC 47-16-07.6(2) on suspicion alone. Both arise only if the tenant pleads guilty to or is convicted of the subsection 1 infraction.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where the dwelling is subject to a no-pets policy (but not where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known), NDCC 47-16-07.5.
- Must itemize any part of a deposit kept and deliver or mail it within thirty days after termination of the lease and delivery of possession, and is liable for treble damages for money withheld without reasonable justification, NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)–(4).
- May still apply the deposit to damage actually caused by an animal or by the tenant's negligence, NDCC 47-16-07.1(3)(a). The carve-out removes the charge in advance, not the bill for real damage.
- May decline where the tenancy would constitute a direct threat to the health or safety of others or would result in substantial physical damage to the property of others, NDCC 14-02.5-06(6).
- Is outside the state accommodation duty only in the narrow cases NDCC 14-02.5-09 describes: an owner-occupied dwelling of not more than four families, or a single-family house let by an owner of no more than three, without a broker, once in twenty-four months. The federal Fair Housing Act and chapter 47-16 are unaffected by that exemption.

## How to get an ESA letter in Williston

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in Williston. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for North Dakota clients who reviews your situation in a telehealth evaluation. (Telehealth evaluation)
3. **Complete your evaluation**, The professional evaluates whether an emotional support animal alleviates symptoms of a condition recognized in the DSM-5. Honest evaluations, not everyone qualifies. (Most of Our Applicants Qualify)
4. **Receive your signed letter**, Your letter arrives on the professional's letterhead with their license number: the documentation North Dakota landlords may lawfully request. (Typically within days of approval)
5. **Send it to your landlord**, Submit the letter with a short reasonable-accommodation request. Pet fees, pet deposits, and breed limits no longer apply to your animal in Williston. (Protection under FHA + state law)

## Conditions that can qualify for an ESA

No fixed government list exists. A licensed professional evaluates whether an animal alleviates symptoms of a DSM-5-recognized condition, commonly:

- Generalized anxiety disorder
- Major depressive disorder
- Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
- Panic disorder
- Social anxiety disorder
- Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)
- Bipolar disorder
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
- Phobias with housing impact
- Chronic stress affecting daily function

## Housing help in Williston

- [City of Williston](https://www.cityofwilliston.com/) (city government)
- [Williams County](https://www.williamsnd.com/) (county government)
- [Community Action Dickinson, Williston office](https://dickinsoncap.org/contact-us/) (community action agency)
- [High Plains Fair Housing Center, Landlord Tenant Law](https://www.highplainsfhc.org/landlord-tenant-law.html) (tenant resource)
- [ND Department of Labor and Human Rights, Housing discrimination](https://www.nd.gov/labor/human-rights/housing) (fair housing)

## Frequently asked questions

### My doctor is in Montana. Does North Dakota require a North Dakota provider?

No. NDCC 47-16-07.5 says documentation "may be provided by a physician or medical professional who does not operate in this state solely to provide certification for service or assistance animals." That is a description of a business, not of a state line. A clinician practising in Montana does not operate in North Dakota at all, so the exclusion cannot reach them. The words "licensed in this state" appear nowhere in the section.

### What does the exclusion clause actually shut out, then?

An operation that is present in North Dakota and whose North Dakota activity is issuing certification for service or assistance animals, with nothing else attached to it. Three words do the work: not, in this state, and solely. Remove any one of them and the clause stops describing the outfit the legislature was aiming at. A practice that treats patients fails the word "solely" straight away.

### Does the section require an in-person visit?

It does not. Some states legislated that condition (Florida's section 760.27 ties out-of-state documentation to in-person care), but NDCC 47-16-07.5 says nothing about how the professional saw the tenant. Its only limit on the writer is the exclusion clause. What it does police is the content: a confirmation of the disability, and a confirmation of the relationship between that disability and the need for the animal.

### My Williston building has no no-pets rule. Does 47-16-07.5 still apply?

The section is written for "a rental dwelling that is subject to a no pets policy." Without such a policy there is no rule that needs an exception, so the documentation permission has nothing to work on. The accommodation duty is unaffected: NDCC 14-02.5-06(3)(b) makes it discrimination to refuse a reasonable accommodation in rules, policies, practices or services, and it is not limited to no-pets buildings.

### At Williston rents, how big can an ordinary pet deposit be?

NDCC 47-16-07.1(2) caps a pet security deposit at the greater of $2,500 or two months' rent. Two months at Williston's $1,122 median gross rent is $2,244, which is under $2,500, so the ceiling here is $2,500, more than double the one month's rent cap that 47-16-07.1(1) puts on an ordinary security deposit. None of it applies to an accommodation animal, which subsection 2 excludes by description.

### Is there a North Dakota registry or certificate I should be getting?

There is none. No registry, database, certificate or state identification card exists for an assistance animal in North Dakota housing, and no administrative rule creates one. The word "animal" does not appear in the Labor Commissioner's housing article of the Administrative Code. The single photo card in the Century Code, at NDCC 25-13-02.1, is a trainer's credential for public places and is not a tenancy document.

### Does documentation expire after a year in North Dakota?

No North Dakota statute sets a renewal period, an expiry date or a re-certification schedule, and nothing in NDCC 47-16-07.5 mentions one. What changes over time is not legal validity but usefulness: the section asks for a professional's confirmation of a current disability and a current need, so documentation from someone who assessed you recently answers that question better than documentation from someone who has not seen you in years.

---

Get evaluated by a licensed provider: https://my.supportanimal.com/qualify?sa_source=blog&sa_medium=blog&sa_campaign=esa-guides&sa_content=markdown&ref=blog&sa_term=north-dakota-emotional-support-animal%2Fwilliston