Diversified water supply schemes can reduce both peak demand and overall demand in the urban water supply network. Consequently, they provide benefits to both the water utility and their customers including deferring network augmentations and reducing household water bills, respectively. However, the installation of different water saving scenarios also incurs additional costs which present a financial burden to the householder. This paper investigates the financial viability of installing alternative water supplies and water efficient appliances in a large scale area, taking into account both their benefits and incurred costs. Water demand profiles were developed for the baseline and various water saving scenarios for new dwellings in Queensland, Australia. Hydraulic model runs were conducted to determine system augmentation and pump power requirements for various water saving scenarios across different planning horizons in a water supply study area. The results of the modeling showed deferred augmentations and reduced pumping requirements for the water savings scenarios, compared to the baseline scenario; contributing to monetary savings to the utility. Cost benefits to the householders are from reduced mains water and energy consumption, with incurred costs from installing the water saving systems. A total net cost balance appraisal demonstrated monetary savings for the water efficient and rainwater tank scenarios while the greywater scenario produced negative net costs. The results are discussed along with incentives and potential savings to promote sustainable alternative water use in an urban area.