Nepal is dealing with the aftermath of a severe ice-rock avalanche at the Nepal-Tibet border, followed by catastrophic floods that have impacted many communities. The Nepal National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Authority has released a Rapid Disaster Needs Assessment (RDNA) that outlines the challenges faced by those affected, including around 33,000 people who have lost their homes. As the country prepares for long-term recovery and risk-reduction strategies, lessons from past disasters, such as the 2015 earthquake, are being considered to better address the needs of affected communities. The floods and landslides have destroyed entire villages, road and bridge networks, and key economic areas, creating major reconstruction challenges for families and communities. After the 2015 earthquake, many homeowners received small grants to rebuild using an "owner-driven reconstruction" model. However, those affected by the current disaster may find it pointless to rebuild their homes if there are no nearby roads, schools, or economic opportunities. For many farmers, the land that supports their livelihoods has been washed away. The RDNA highlights that household recovery depends on restoring connected services and access, which in turn requires stable terrain. Some households may discover that upcoming technical assessments label their land as too hazardous for rebuilding. While integrated settlements are being considered to resettle displaced communities, past experiences after the 2015 earthquake show that such settlements often struggled when the needs of different communities and social dynamics were not prioritized. Relocating people away from hazardous areas like landslides and floods can reduce physical risks, but it doesn’t address other issues like economic instability and inequality. Any rebuilding plan must first identify who is eligible for compensation or support and on what basis. The RDNA acknowledges that simply building new homes doesn’t identify all households in need and notes the challenges of verifying eligibility, especially when documents are lost. Nepal’s 2015 constitution transferred significant responsibility for disaster risk reduction to local authorities. However, in the early days of the recent floods, local authorities had limited capacity to manage the disaster, with the Nepal Army leading search and rescue efforts under central government direction. Now, the focus should shift to building local capacity and considering the preferences and priorities of each municipality, as reconstruction and relocation needs may vary widely. The RDNA was prepared without direct engagement with affected communities, such as through surveys, interviews, or focus groups. This personal, on-the-ground engagement is crucial next. Indigenous communities, like the Tamang, whose identities are deeply tied to the land, must be seen as political entities capable of leading assessments and shaping policies, not just as sources of information for central government programs. The Bhotekoshi-Trishuli floods affected the homelands of the Tamang and other Indigenous Peoples, who make up a large portion of the population in many affected areas. While relocation might offer greater safety, many Indigenous people prefer to stay in their ancestral lands. Many communities in Nepal have long histories of mobility, and the disaster-affected towns along the Bhotekoshi and Trishuli rivers reflect historical migration trends linked to national development and hydropower projects. The consequences of unplanned development in the Himalayas are now clear. When rivers are treated only as economic corridors, roads, services, and opportunities become concentrated in flood- and landslide-prone areas. Workers who migrate for employment often face risks they can't control. It remains unclear what responsibility the hydropower sector will take for compensation and rebuilding. Instead of rebuilding in the same risky locations, there should be a broader rethink of settlement and development patterns. If connectivity and community needs are properly addressed, those who moved to riverside economies might consider moving uphill again. Ultimately, people should not have to choose between their attachment to a place and their safety, or between traditional territory and economic opportunities. Development in known hazard zones is creating unsustainable risks globally. With support from the international community and private-sector contributions, Nepal has an opportunity to demonstrate how to rethink economic development in relation to climate and geohazard risks, in consultation with local communities and governments. This will also require rethinking transboundary relationships. Rather than simply “building back better,” Nepal can build back differently by focusing on human-centered values, sustainability, and community autonomy over their futures.