in effect, deny those with the least financial resources access to CERCLA’s benefits. While we recognize a potential for .inequality within the CERCLA private cost-recovery scheme, we believe our holding today interprets the statute correctly and also promotes prompt and efficient responses to environmental hazards. Moreover, no one is entirely excluded from CERCLA’s benefits because state and federal environmental agencies are also empowered to carry out its statutory goals. 16 . Plaintiffs brought their common law claims under both Nebraska law and Iowa law because there are members of the plaintiff class residing in each state. We hold that only Nebraska law applies. See International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 493-500, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (Ouellette ) (<HOLDING>). In Ouellette, the Supreme Court reasoned:
holding that the law to be applied in determining the validity of  an outofstate marriage is the law of the state in which the marriage occurred holding that landowners common law nuisance claim against operator of outofstate paper mill was governed by law of source state in light of clean water acts comprehensive regulatory system which applied to paper mill holding that the rights and duties of the united states on commercial paper which it issues are governed by federal law and that in the absence of an applicable act of congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own standards holding that state common law claims were preempted by frustration of purpose conflict with the federal clean water act and noting it would be extraordinary for congress after devising an elaborate permit system that sets clear effluent discharge standards to tolerate common law suits that have the potential to undermine the regulatory system holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state