It used to be that water was just part of general rates, so that if you had a more valuable house you paid more, a less valuable house you paid less. The whole new right belief that 'pay what you can afford' is actually inefficient and unfair (read rich people are getting grumpy) hit local government in the 1980s. The Rating Powers Act 1988 allowed local government to introduce user-charges for water. Under the Act councils were allowed to charge people for how much water they used, usually done by installing water meters at each household. And, for those not charged by the amount they used, a universal water charge was introduced, so everyone, rich and poor were charged the same amount - the new idea of fair.
Now the Wellington City Council (bar Councillor Bryan Pepperell) is proposing to again reduce targetted rates (based on property value) and increase fixed rates. So this will mean people, no matter how rich or poor will all be paying a whopping $225 for sewerage and $225 for water.
At the same time, the Council is making a serious plug for people to install meters at their house and get charged for the amount they use which is a current option for residents. My guess is that they're hoping that people will be scared off by the large fixed charges, and opt for installing a meter. Whether it's Kerry Prendergast's wishful thinking, or a new council policy that every house will have a water meter, I'm not sure. But once water meters are installed, the corporate dream of water being just another commodity will be realised.
Here's why water meters are a bad idea.

1. Once everyone has a water meter, perhaps being lulled by an initial low cost per cubic metre compared with a high fixed cost, there is nothing stopping the Council increasing water charges to whatever they like. This is what happened in Auckland, where within a year of meters being introduced some households were being charged $1000 per year for water.

2. Water metering, as with any user pays system, is bad for the poor and okay for the rich. It won't make much difference to rich people if they're paying a bit more to fill their swimming pool and wash their Jaguar. They have the incomes to absorb that sort of charge. It will, however, make a big difference to poorer people, already struggling financially, who need water for cleaning, cooking and drinking. It will especially make a difference to poorer people with large families, who have less money to go around as it is. Inevitably, larger families will use more water for essential things like cleaning, cooking and drinking.

3. Residential ratepayers with water meters are charged exactly the same amount per cubic metre as commercial ratepayers. There is a clear message that a person's right to use water for profit is considered exactly the same as a person's right to drinking water. If you need big official organisations to validate what your gut instinct is, the United Nations have declared that the right to water is a human right.

4. Once meters are installed, and water is being charged for per cubic meter, it's much more like a product than a council service. And the great thing about products, for those thinking along those lines, is that someone can make a profit from it. The Council, just quietly, will have created a neat little package that can be sold off to a corporation.

5. The Local Government Act 2002, though government claims it prevents the privatisation of water, actually facilitates public private partnerships (PPPs) which allow government (or councils) to maintain ownership of a resource, but the management of a resource (let's say water) can be passed over to a profit making company. Everyone except the New Zealand government considers PPPs a form of privatisation, but here that view is recognised as being politically unpalatable so they're put up, erroneously, as an alternative to privatisation. WCC councillors have already been attending meetings where water multinationals have been talking about how their models could be applied here.
The WCC, could, as it tends to do, go:

WCC: Oh we're terribly in debt, we can't possibly afford to keep managing water, and we don't really have the skills to do it, whatever are we going to do.

Enter nice multinational company with vast international experience in efficient water delivery, stage right.

WCC: Aaaaah we're saved. No don't worry we're not selling water off, we'd never do that. It's perfect, we keep ownership of the water, and this nice company will take over the management of delivery, price setting, profit making - oops! we mean efficiency concerns, that we can't possibly deal with.

6. On most tenancy agreements there is now a little box which says, should a water meter be introduced, tenants and not homeowners should pay for the water. So landlords have a very easy way to transfer the cost of water on to tenants and it won't be considered a rent hike.

Special note re environmentalism
Unfortunately, people who think that water should be a tradeable commodity and want it run by businesses like any other profit-making good, use environmental arguments to justify this. The argument goes people will use less water if they have to pay for it, they will be more careful about its use. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

1. Because user-pays affects poorer people more. Rich people can afford to waste water and will keep wasting water because a price disincentive does not affect them. It tends to be richer people with larger lawns to water, more cars to wash and swimming pools to fill that are problem water users.

2. Because the real problem of water use is not residential users, but commercial users. If there was genuine concern about the environment and water wastage, the government would not be encouraging the development of thirsty industries like the dairy industry, it would be charging businesses more for water.

3. Because there are alternatives. The Wellington City Council used to have a free service, presumably to prevent water wastage, of fixing people's dripping taps. An excellent targetted service that gets to the heart of a genuine problem and fixes it. Bring it back WCC. It tends to be poorer people who put off getting the plumber in because feeding their kids and themselves takes priority.
4. Because look at the cretins who use environmental arguments to justify user-pays in water. The Business Roundtable harped on for years that water should be sold off to private companies, and developed a nice little 'people won't waste it as much' argument to go alongside it. Roundtable, no doubt, represent the same businesses that are always always complaining about compliance costs (including meeting environmental standards) are a terrible burden for business. Let's be clear. The motivation for the Roundtable and others promoting user-pays in water is the fervent hope that they, or their business friends, could get their hands on the immeasurable profits available to someone in control of an essential service.

What people can do
If you want to use the Council process make a submission to the draft long-term plan.
Say clearly that you believe residential water supply should remain as part of targetted rates. That the residential flat charge for water should not increase. That you do not want compulsory residential water meters.
If the Council start installing meters then there's a wonderful legacy from the Auckland Water Pressure group of disabling and digging up the meters.
I'll add information on what else people can do later when I have more details.

----------------------------