In arsenic-affected regions of Cambodia, rural water committees and planners can choose to promote various arsenic-avoidance and/or arsenic-removal water supply systems. Each of these has different costs of providing water, subsequently born by the consumer in order to be sustainable. On a volumetric basis ($/m3-yr) and of the arsenic-avoidance options considered, small-scale public water supply - e.g., treated water provided to a central tap stand - is the most expensive option on a life-cycle cost basis. Rainwater harvesting, protected hand dug wells, and vendor-supplied water are the cheapest with a normalized present worth value, ranging from $2 to $10 per cubic meter per year of water delivered. Subsidization of capital costs is needed to make even these options affordable to the lowest (Q5) quintile. The range of arsenic-removal systems considered here, using adsorptive media, is competitive with large-scale public water supply and deep tube well systems. Both community level and household-scale systems are in a range that is affordable to the Q4 quintile, though more research and field trials are needed. At a target cost of $5.00/m3, arsenic removal systems will compete with the OpEx costs for most of the arsenic-safe water systems that are currently available. The life-cycle cost approach is a valuable method for comparing alternatives and for assessing current water supply practices as these relate to equity and the ability to pay. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.