In business, rushing a major decision can often lead to poor results.
The same principle should apply in government. Yet in recent years, Connecticut lawmakers have increasingly relied on fast-tracked legislation, emergency-certified bills or special sessions to pass complex policies with limited debate.
That approach may move legislation quickly, but it often comes at the expense of transparency, scrutiny and ultimately good governance.
The most striking example is the ongoing saga surrounding the proposed sale of Aquarion Water Co., the state’s largest water utility.
The $2.4 billion transaction between Eversource and the newly formed Aquarion Water Authority traces back to a law passed during a 2024 special legislative session that allowed the South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority to pursue the deal.
That legislation moved quickly through the Capitol and received little public scrutiny at the time.
Today, the consequences of that rushed process are still playing out.
The deal has become entangled in legal challenges, regulatory reviews and growing political opposition. The Public Utilities Regulatory Authority initially rejected the transaction last year, citing governance concerns and potential risks to consumers.
But a court later overturned PURA’s denial, finding that the regulator had overstepped its authority in blocking governance structures that were explicitly allowed under the 2024 law passed by the legislature.
Then, earlier this month, PURA reversed course and preliminarily approved the sale despite continuing concerns about governance and potential costs to ratepayers, concluding that the statutory framework created by the legislature leaves the agency without sufficient grounds to deny the deal. A final decision is scheduled for March 25.
Meanwhile, lawmakers have floated new legislation that attempts to revisit or modify the very framework they created less than two years ago.
That kind of legislative whiplash is exactly what can happen when complex policy decisions are rushed through the Capitol without a thorough vetting process.
The Aquarion situation is not the only recent example.
Last year, lawmakers passed a sweeping housing reform bill during a special session after Gov. Ned Lamont vetoed an earlier version of the legislation. Housing policy is one of the most complicated and politically sensitive issues facing Connecticut, touching everything from zoning laws to municipal finances.
Yet the revised bill was pushed through during a two-day special session — limiting the time available for public review and input.
Regardless of where one stands on the merits of the policy, major structural changes to Connecticut’s housing system should not be rushed through under compressed timelines.
The same concern applies to the legislature’s recent use of emergency-certified bills.
In late February, Democratic lawmakers approved two such measures, including a sweeping, nearly 100-section bill covering a wide range of topics, from earmarks for specific organizations to warehouse worker regulations that had already been the subject of heated debate.
Emergency-certified legislation bypasses the normal committee process and avoids public hearings. It is meant for situations that require immediate action.
But many of the provisions included in that bill clearly did not meet that standard.
Even Gov. Lamont raised concerns about the process, using his line-item veto authority to remove several earmarks from the measure and writing that his objection was not to the programs themselves, but to how the legislation moved through the Capitol.
Emergency bills and special sessions should be reserved for true crises — natural disasters, fiscal emergencies or urgent public safety threats.
They should not become routine tools for advancing complicated or controversial policy.
Connecticut’s legislature has been dominated by one party for many years. That reality makes the need for strong internal checks even more important. When political competition is limited, the legislative process itself must serve as the guardrail.
Good governance takes time.
And when it comes to public policy, getting it right should matter far more than getting it done quickly.
