# ESA Letter in Harrisburg, SD: Section 4 and Section 14

> A landlord quoting SDCL 20-13-21.1 has a real statute. It came from the same 1986 bill as the accommodation duty — and marks its edges, not its end.

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

## Key facts

- Population: 10,203
- Households renting: 21.6%
- Typical pet deposit (as a pet): Barred as accommodation
- Typical pet rent (as a pet): $35-$60/mo for pets
- Breed/weight limits common: yes
- Pet fees, deposits, and breed limits with a valid ESA letter: none (FHA reasonable accommodation)

## South Dakota's second-highest rents, in a town of ten thousand

Harrisburg's median gross rent is **$1,362** on the 2020–2024 American
Community Survey five-year estimate. Only Box Elder ($1,491) is higher.
Sioux Falls, twelve miles north, is $1,035; the state median is $946.

The renter share tells the other half of the story: 649 renting households
out of 3,008 occupied homes, **21.6 percent**, seventeenth of the state's
twenty largest cities and ten points under the statewide figure. The 2024
Census estimate puts the city at 10,203.

Harrisburg is new housing built for the Sioux Falls commute. High rents, few rentals,
recently built stock, and landlords who tend to be organised, which is why the refusal
that shows up here is usually not "no," but "no, and here is the section."

## The section they quote

SDCL 20-13-21.1, catchline "Housing — Modifications on behalf of disabled persons
unnecessary":

> "Nothing in this chapter requires any person selling, renting, or leasing property … to
> **modify the property in any way, incur any additional expenses or exercise a higher
> degree of care** for a person having a disability than for a person who does not have a
> disability. Nor does this chapter relieve any person of any obligations generally imposed
> on all persons, regardless of any disability, in a written lease, rental agreement or
> contract of purchase or sale…"

Read quickly, that sounds like a general release: nothing in the chapter
requires anything extra for a disabled person.

Read as written, it is a **list of three things**, and the list is the whole
of it. Modify the property. Incur additional expenses. Exercise a higher
degree of care.

## What a no-pets waiver actually asks for

Put your request next to the three items.

- **Does it modify the property?** No. The building is untouched. What changes is a
  provision in the lease.
- **Does it require additional expense?** No. Not charging a pet fee is the absence of
  income, not an outlay, and the landlord's costs are unaltered.
- **Does it require a higher degree of care?** No. You are not asking to be looked after
  differently from any other tenant; you are asking for an exception to one rule.

An accommodation of this kind is outside all three. That is the argument,
and it is short because the section is short.

## Why the two sections are not in conflict

A landlord may push back that SDCL 20-13-21.1 and SDCL 20-13-23.7 cannot
both be law. That one says accommodate and the other says nothing extra is
required.

They can, and the session-law citations show why. Look at where each came from:

- **SDCL 20-13-23.7**, the accommodation duty, is **SL 1986, ch 170, § 4**.
- **SDCL 20-13-21.1** (the "nothing requires" section) is **SL 1986, ch 170, § 14**.

Same year. Same chapter. Same bill, ten sections apart.

A legislature that intended section 14 to cancel section 4 would not have
enacted them together in one act. The reading that gives both work is the
ordinary one: section 4 imposes a good-faith duty to reasonably accommodate,
and section 14 marks out three things that duty does not reach.

**Say this carefully.** No South Dakota case construing the two against each other was
retrieved for this page. It is a textual reading, not a decided one.

What supports it from inside the code is the remedies section. SDCL
20-13-35.1 provides that punitive damages may be awarded under SDCL 21-3-2
for a violation of, among others, **20-13-23.7**, and permits attorneys'
fees and costs to the prevailing party in housing matters. A legislature
does not attach punitive damages to a section that requires nothing of
anyone.

## What section 14 does cover

It is not empty. On its words it answers requests to alter the property,
requests that cost the landlord money, and requests for a heightened
standard of care.

The first of those is dealt with expressly elsewhere in the same chapter. SDCL 20-13-20(4)
makes it an unfair or discriminatory practice to refuse to permit, **"at the expense of the
disabled person,"** reasonable modifications of existing property necessary to afford full
enjoyment of it, and lets a landlord condition permission on restoration afterwards where
reasonable. So modifications are allowed and paid for by the tenant, which is exactly the
allocation section 14 describes.

## And the provision that has none of this difficulty

**42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B)** (the federal Fair Housing Act's reasonable-accommodation
duty) applies to Harrisburg rentals on its own terms and is not narrowed by anything in
SDCL chapter 20-13. Where the state-law argument turns on reading two 1986 sections
together, the federal duty simply says what it says.

Name both. The state duty because it is the local one and carries punitive
damages; the federal one because it does not depend on the argument above.

## The money at Harrisburg prices

SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps everything the landlord holds at one month's rent "however
denominated." At a $1,362 median that ceiling is substantial, and a pet charge stacked on
top of it is a larger sum than almost anywhere else in the state.

Where the animal is a genuine accommodation the charge should not be there at all, SDCL
20-13-20(2) makes disability discrimination in "the terms, conditions, or privileges" of a
rental an unfair or discriminatory practice.

Damage is still yours. SDCL 43-32-24 lets a lessor keep back the reasonable
cost of restoring the unit to the state it was in when the tenancy started,
setting ordinary wear and tear aside, and puts them on a twenty-one day
clock to return the balance or give written reasons.

## If the answer stays no

SDCL 20-13-31 allows 180 days from when the practice occurred, with no
discovery language. A landlord's confident and mistaken citation of
20-13-21.1 does not stop that clock, and a tenant who spends four months
looking it up has spent most of the window.

## Where the two 1986 sections actually meet

There is a clean way to test which of them your request falls under.

Ask what the landlord would have to **do**. If the answer involves building,
altering, buying or paying for something, SDCL 20-13-21.1 is engaged and the
cost allocation in SDCL 20-13-20(4) (at the disabled person's expense) is
the answer.

If the answer is "stop applying a clause in the lease to this tenant," none of the three items in
20-13-21.1 is engaged, and what remains is the good-faith duty in 20-13-23.7.

That test is quick, it is faithful to the words, and it is much easier to
state in a letter than an argument about session laws.

## The part the citation contest never reaches

Start with a clinician you already see. Most Harrisburg households get their
care in Sioux Falls, which is the deepest bench in the state and still means
two to four months for a new patient, with several large practices declining
housing documentation as standing policy.

Where that route is closed, a licensed evaluation is the same examination
arranged on purpose, someone licensed determining whether a disability
exists and whether this animal answers it, then writing the determination or
explaining why not. Both endings are real.

Against a landlord who arrives with a statute number, an argument about 1986
session laws is worth having. It is worth much more when the thing it is
protecting is a determination somebody actually made.

## What Harrisburg landlords can and cannot do

**Cannot:**
- May not require documentation at all where the disability or the disability-related need is readily apparent or already known to them, SDCL 43-32-34, second sentence.
- May not discriminate because of disability in the terms, conditions or privileges of the rental, SDCL 20-13-20(2). A pet deposit or monthly pet charge on a required accommodation is caught here.
- May not take a security deposit above one month's rent "however denominated", SDCL 43-32-6.1, so a pet fee cannot be stacked on top of a full deposit by renaming it.

**Can:**
- May require reliable supporting documentation where a tenant asserts a disability requiring an assistance animal, SDCL 43-32-34. This is an express statutory right and arguing that a South Dakota landlord may not ask is simply wrong.
- May insist the documentation confirm both the disability and the relationship between the disability and the need for the animal, and that it come from a licensed health care provider who does not operate in South Dakota solely to certify animals, SDCL 43-32-35.
- Must make good faith efforts to reasonably accommodate a person with a disability in housing, unless the accommodation would impose undue hardship, SDCL 20-13-23.7, with punitive damages available under SDCL 20-13-35.1.
- Must return the deposit or give written reasons within twenty-one days of termination, and forfeits all right to withhold anything by failing to, SDCL 43-32-24.
- May evict and claim a damage fee of up to one thousand dollars where a tenant knowingly makes a false claim of disability or knowingly supplies fraudulent documentation, SDCL 43-32-36.
- Is not required by the chapter to modify the property, incur additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care, SDCL 20-13-21.1. Waiving a no-pets rule asks for none of those things.

## How to get an ESA letter in Harrisburg

1. **Check that you qualify**, Answer a short screening about how your condition affects daily life in Harrisburg. No diagnosis paperwork needed up front. (About 5 minutes: free)
2. **Connect with a licensed professional**, You are matched with a provider licensed for South 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 South 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 Harrisburg. (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 Harrisburg

- [City of Harrisburg](https://www.harrisburgsd.gov/) (city government)
- [Sioux Falls Housing](https://www.siouxfallshousing.org/) (local housing authority)
- [Inter-Lakes Community Action Partnership](https://www.interlakescap.com/) (community action agency)
- [SD Division of Human Rights](https://dlr.sd.gov/human_rights/default.aspx) (state civil rights agency)

## Frequently asked questions

### My landlord says SDCL 20-13-21.1 means they owe me nothing. Are they right?

No, but they are quoting a real section. It provides that nothing in the chapter requires a landlord "to modify the property in any way, incur any additional expenses or exercise a higher degree of care for a person having a disability than for a person who does not have a disability." That is a list of three things, not a general release. Waiving a no-pets rule is none of the three: it changes a rule rather than the building, it costs nothing, and it asks for no heightened standard of care.

### How can that section and SDCL 20-13-23.7 both be law?

Because they were enacted together. SDCL 20-13-23.7 is section 4 of chapter 170 of the 1986 South Dakota session laws; SDCL 20-13-21.1 is section 14 of that same chapter. One legislature, one bill, ten sections apart. They were written to be read together, and read together the later section marks out the boundaries of the earlier one rather than repealing it.

### Is that reading settled law in South Dakota?

No, and this page will not pretend otherwise. No South Dakota case construing 20-13-21.1 against 20-13-23.7 was retrieved for this material. What supports the reading from inside the code is SDCL 20-13-35.1, which makes punitive damages available for a violation of 20-13-23.7. A legislature does not attach punitive damages to a section that requires nothing of anyone.

### Does the federal Fair Housing Act have the same problem?

No. 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(B) imposes the reasonable accommodation duty as a matter of federal law and is not narrowed by anything in SDCL chapter 20-13. For most Harrisburg tenants it is the stronger of the two provisions, and it is worth naming alongside the state duty rather than instead of it.

### What would 20-13-21.1 actually cover?

On its words, a request to alter the property, a request that costs the landlord money, or a request for a higher standard of care than other tenants receive. SDCL 20-13-20(4) fits the first category and answers it directly: reasonable modifications of existing property are permitted at the expense of the disabled person, not the landlord's.

### Harrisburg rents are high. Does that affect the deposit rules?

It affects the numbers. SDCL 43-32-6.1 caps everything the landlord holds at one month's rent however denominated, and at Harrisburg's $1,362 median gross rent, the second highest in South Dakota, that is a substantial sum. An unlawful pet charge stacked on top of it is a larger problem here than in most of the state.

### How long do I have to act on a refusal?

180 days, running from the refusal itself under SDCL 20-13-31, with the charge going to the Division of Human Rights inside the Department of Labor and Regulation. Nothing in the section pauses that clock for a tenant who accepted a landlord's confident and mistaken citation of 20-13-21.1 and only looked it up four months later.

---

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=south-dakota-emotional-support-animal%2Fharrisburg