Here is the rough draft of three paragraphs:

Sovereign immunity on the part of Native entities in rural Alaska is to be considered in relation to private sector investment and public sector investment. Sovereign immunity’s impediment on investment appears to be marginal at best in the Alaska context.

Private sector investors sometimes seek a waiver of sovereign immunity in order to facilitate recovery in the event that the native entity fails to fulfill obligations under the investment contract. The greater part of Alaska’s rural communities are not linked via rail or road to either Alaska or North America as a whole. The populations of these communities are of relatively small size. Any capital assets located in these communities are essentially unrecoverable in the event of a default by the Native entity because the assets cannot be economically reclaimed by the private sector investors or their assigns given the transportation difficulties and the lack of alternative markets in or near the rural communities. Sovereign immunity is not an impediment to investment in rural Alaska.

Public sector investment in rural Alaska is impeded by the desire of the State of Alaska to acquire full sovereignty over the land in rural Alaska. Certain airport construction projects have not gone through in rural Alaska because the State has refused to pay over the requisite three cents on the dollar that would bring in Federal monies unless the Native entities relinquish the right to control the operation of the proposed airports and the use of the airport land once the proposed airport ceases to be operated. In other words, the State of Alaska seeks to have the Native entities sell the right of local people to determine their lives for three cents on the dollar. In order to facilitate economic development by Native entities, the United States in Congress should waive the requirement for the State of Alaska’s participation in public works projects in rural Alaska.