DALLAS, Aug. 14 (Our Texas Times) — Dallas Fort Worth International Airport will not add a proposed set of ablution washing stations to the pre-security side of Terminal D, ending a project that had drawn scrutiny from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
The airport said Aug. 15 that it accelerated its review because of increased public attention. It concluded that the project would not provide the operational benefits originally expected.
The decision means the proposed stations will not move from the planning stage to construction. DFW did not say that work had begun, and the available records do not show that the project received final approval.
What was proposed?
Ablution, also called wudu, is a washing ritual many Muslims perform before prayer. The proposed project involved adding washing stations to existing restrooms in the pre-security area of Terminal D, DFW’s international terminal. Earlier project descriptions listed one station in a men’s restroom and one in a women’s restroom.
DFW already has an ablution station connected to the interfaith chapel in Terminal D. Airport statements described that facility as being on the post-security side of the terminal and available since 2019.
DFW said it has operated that facility, like similar stations at international airports, without concerns. The airport described the additional stations as an operational and customer-service proposal, not as a completed or approved construction project.
What did the state project record show?
A Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation project record registered July 31 identified the proposal as “DFW – Wudu – Ablution stations – Terminal D.” The record listed an estimated cost of $300,000, an expected start date of Aug. 31 and an estimated completion date of Dec. 31. Its status was listed as “Project Registered.”
Those dates were project estimates, not evidence that construction had started. The available information does not establish whether they remained active after DFW decided not to proceed.
The record also contained a funding designation described as “non-publicly funded.” DFW said that was an error made by its outside design firm, Ghafari Associates. The airport said the project would have been paid for with airport funds. DFW also said the likely cost was closer to $120,000 than the $300,000 high estimate in the state filing.
The sources available for this report do not include a formal cancellation document, a board vote or a final contract.
Why did Abbott object?
Abbott directed a review of state grants involving entities that operate DFW and George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. He said the review could include revoking existing grants and denying future funding.
Abbott also referred both airports to the U.S. Department of Transportation and asked Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy to seek a review by the department and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Abbott argued that the proposed facilities could amount to religious discrimination. In a statement reported by Fox News, he said, “Government-owned airports cannot favor one religion over all others.” He also called the proposed facilities illegal.
DFW’s explanation differed. The airport said the project was being evaluated as a facility and service change and that the review was accelerated because of public attention.
No court ruling, federal agency finding or other independent legal determination in the available records establishes that the proposal violated discrimination law. The records also do not show whether Abbott’s grant review or the federal referrals will continue after DFW’s decision.
What changes for travelers?
For travelers, the immediate change is that the additional pre-security stations will not be built under the proposal DFW reviewed. The airport’s existing post-security ablution station remains the facility described in the available airport statements.
The project did not involve a runway, terminal expansion or change to flight operations. The records also do not identify any effect on passenger processing, security screening or airport access.
The dispute does raise questions about how public airports handle religious facilities, how airport funds are classified and how state funding could be affected. The available information does not identify the specific state grants under review or their dollar amounts.
