¶ 82. {concurring in part and dissenting in part). Because I conclude that this court should extend the discovery rule to actions brought to enforce Wisconsin's Solid Waste Law, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 83. In 1970, Chrysler Corporation knowingly violated the State’s law with respect to disposal of solid wastes. Chrysler received the State of Wisconsin Solid Waste Disposal Standards (effective May 1, 1969) on December 15, 1969 but did not hire a licensed hauler until some time in the early 1970s. The regulations, Wis. Admin. Code ch. 51, clearly and unambiguously required that generators of solid waste such as Chrysler dispose of their waste: a) at a licensed facility, or b) by a licensed hauler.
¶ 84. Chrysler did neither.
*176¶ 85. Instead, Chrysler hired an unlicensed hauler to transport over 400 drums of waste, including hazardous substances, for disposal. Evidence in the record indicates that Chrysler knew that the waste disposal hauler was not licensed, and further knew that the regulations forbade their activities.
¶ 86. The buried drums were not unearthed and discovered until 1992 when the site was excavated. I agree with the State that "[i]t would be an injustice to apply the statute of limitations to bar the State from prosecuting the defendants when the State had absolutely no ability to identify the violations, to identify the defendants, or to assess the damage to the environment prior to discover of the barrels." State's Brief at 21-22.
¶ 87. I dissent because I believe that the discovery rule should apply to enforcement actions of the Solid Waste Law provided for in Wis. Stat. § 144.43 (1969) and Wis. Admin. Code § RD 51.05-51.06. Extending the discovery rule is the proper result in this case because: 1) a violation of the Solid Waste Law and resultant liability bears a far closer resemblance to an analysis of a tort of negligence, to which the discovery rule applies, than it does to a contract analysis, to which the discovery rule does not apply; 2) applying the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law fits squarely with this court's rationale extending the discovery rule to torts in Hansen v. A.H. Robins, Inc., 113 Wis. 2d 550, 335 N.W.2d 578 (1983), Spitler v. Dean, 148 Wis. 2d 630, 436 N.W.2d 308 (1989), and Borello v. U.S. Oil Co., 130 Wis. 2d 397, 388 N.W.2d 140 (1986); 3) Chrysler's violation of the Solid Waste Law includes aspects similar to fraud — a cause of action to which the discovery rule statutorily applies; and 4) other states *177have extended the discovery rule to enforcement of similar environmental statutes.
I.
¶ 88. Extending the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law, Wis. Stat. § 144.43 and Wis. Admin. Code §§ RD 51.05-51.06 is logical because of the close resemblance that violations of the Solid Waste Law and resultant liability have to a classic tort analysis. This court declined to extend the discovery rule to a contract case, holding that a cause a action accrues when the contract is breached regardless of whether the party knew or should have known of the breach. See CLL Associates v. Arrowhead Pacific, 174 Wis. 2d 604, 617, 497 N.W.2d 115 (1993). But a violation of the Solid Waste Law bears no resemblance to a contract case. It bears striking resemblance to a negligent tort case.
¶ 89. A person is liable for negligence if that person has a duty, he or she breaches that duty, the breach in fact causes harm (cause-in-fact), and public policy considerations do not preclude imposing liability. See Morgan v. Pennsylvania Gen. Ins. Co., 87 Wis. 2d 723, 732-37, 275 N.W.2d 660 (1979).
¶ 90. In Wisconsin everyone has a duty of due care to the whole world. "The test of negligence is whether the conduct foreseeably creates an unreasonable risk to others. [Citations omitted.] The risk need not be to the particular plaintiff. The test is whether unreasonable risk to the world at large is created by the conduct." Morgan, 87 Wis. 2d at 732 (citations omitted).
¶ 91. Chrysler, as a corporate citizen of Wisconsin, had a duty of due care to the whole world. Chrysler's conduct — contracting with an unlicensed *178hauler to remove drums containing hazardous substances, foreseeably created an unreasonable risk to the citizens of the State of Wisconsin. Chrysler's duty to refrain from such conduct was codified as the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law at Wis. Stat. § 144.43 and in regulations promulgated as Wis. Admin. Code §§ RD 51.05-51.06.
¶ 92. Chrysler breached its duty to the State of Wisconsin and its citizens when it hired an unlicensed hazardous waste hauler in violation of Wis. Admin. Code § RD 51.05. The record shows that after the Wisconsin legislature enacted the Solid Waste Law and promulgated regulations, Chrysler nonetheless persisted in contracting with a unlicensed waste hauler to remove hazardous waste from its facility.
¶ 93. The third aspect of negligence law is whether the defendant's breach of its duty of due care caused harm, a question generally left for the jury.
Legal cause in negligence actions is made up of two components, cause-in-fact and 'proximate cause,' or policy considerations. [Citations omitted.] The test of cause-in-fact is whether the negligence was a 'substantial factor' in producing the injury. [Citations omitted.] Under this test, there can be more than one substantial factor contributing to the same result and thus more than one cause-in-fact.
Morgan, 87 Wis. 2d at 735 (citations omitted).
¶ 94. Chrysler's "negligence," illegally contracting with an unlicensed hauler which, in turn, dumped the drums at an unlicensed site, was a substantial factor in producing the harm — an environmental nightmare. But for Chrysler's illegal actions in 1970 and its continued failure to clean-up *179the site, the soil and ground water at the Bark River site would be free from contamination.
¶ 95. If the present case were one for negligence, a court might conclude that public policy precludes holding Chrysler liable even though Chrysler breached its duty by illegally dumping hazardous waste and this breach was cause-in-fact of injury to the environment.
Some of the public policy reasons for not imposing liability despite a finding of negligence as a substantial factor producing injury are: (1) The injury is too remote from the negligence; or (2) the injury is too wholly out of proportion to the culpability of the negligent tort-feasor; or (3) in retrospect it appears too highly extraordinary that the negligence should have brought about the harm; or (4) because allowance of recovery would place too unreasonable a burden on the negligent tort-feasor; or (5) because allowance of recovery would be too likely to open the way for fraudulent claims; or (6) allowance of recovery would enter a field that has no sensible or just stopping point.
Id. at 737 (citations omitted). Generally an appellate court does not address the public policy issues before a jury determines the negligence and cause-in-fact issues. See id. at 738. However, where the " 'question of public policy is fully presented by the complaint and demurrer,' " the court may determine the public policy issue based on the pleadings. Id.
¶ 96. If the present case were one for negligence, I believe that none of the public policy considerations would preclude holding Chrysler liable. Chrysler's actions so directly caused the environmental damage that, even though it was more than 20 years ago when Chrysler violated the Solid Waste Law, the injury is not too remote from Chrysler's actions. Without regard *180to the consequences, Chrysler violated the law. By contracting with an unlicensed hauler, Chrysler had to realize that the hauler might well dump the hazardous waste at an unlicensed site, thereby evading state inspectors or other enforcement mechanisms. In retrospect, it is not extraordinary that Chrysler's actions would bring about environmental damage. Chrysler allowed over 400 drums, some containing hazardous waste, to be dumped at an unlicensed waste site. Of course, over time this would cause environmental damage. Holding Chrysler liable would not be unduly burdensome. Chrysler was directly "responsible for the satisfactory collection and transportation of all solid waste accumulated at that premises." Wis. Admin. Code § RD 51.05.
¶ 97. The Solid Waste Law enforcement action in the present case bears a close resemblance to a classic negligence action; for the same reasons we chose to adopt the discovery rule in tort actions, we should adopt it here.
II.
¶ 98. Applying the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law fits squarely with this court's rationale in Hansen, adopting the discovery rule for tort causes of action. Violation of the Solid Waste Law is so akin to the tort of negligence, as discussed in part I of this dissent, that it logically follows to extend the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law.
¶ 99. The discovery rule applies to "all tort actions other than those already governed by a legislatively created discovery rule. Such tort claims shall accrue on the date the injury is discovered or with reasonable diligence should be discovered, whichever occurs first." Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 560. The discovery *181rule requires not only discovery of injury "but also that the injury was probably caused by the defendant's condúct or product." Borello, 130 Wis. 2d at 411 (footnote omitted). A plaintiff s cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff "knew the identity of the defendant, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the identity of the defendant." Spitler, 148 Wis. 2d at 636.
¶ 100. This court extended the discovery rule to torts because we recognized that in some instances, "negligence may cause an injury which is initially latent. Such an injury may not be discovered until it is manifested at a later date." Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 555. Not applying the discovery rule could have extremely harsh results, punishing blameless victims for any delay in bringing a claim while rewarding defendants by barring meritorious claims. See id. at 556, 559.
Although theoretically a claim is capable of enforcement as soon as the injury occurs, as a practical matter a claim cannot be enforced until the claimant discovers the injury and the accompanying right of action. In some cases the claim will be time barred before the harm is or could be discovered, making it impossible for the injured party to seek redress.
Id. at 559.
¶ 101. Violations of Wisconsin's Solid Waste Law can result in just as much of a latent injury as can be caused by a tort such as medical malpractice. There is a certain similarity between the injury to Mother Earth caused by illegally dumping drums of hazardous waste and an injury to a person caused, for example, by leaving a sponge in a person during surgery. Just as we do not allow a negligent tort-feasor to bury its mistake *182and escape liability on the ground that the tort was discovered "too late," so too we should not allow a corporate citizen to bury its waste and escape liability on the ground that the violation was discovered "too late."
¶ 102. Chrysler relies on this court's decision in CLL, 174 Wis. 2d 604, to argue that the discovery rule should not be extended to claims under the Solid Waste Law. Chrysler asserts that the State, in its enforcement role, is more similar to a contract claimant than a tort claimant. Chrysler also argues the State is not akin to a hapless tort victim, but is more like a criminal prosecutor in that the State seeks to impose penalties and forfeitures to protect the public interest. The majority also cites CLL as an example of this court declining to extend the discovery rule. See majority op. at 148.
¶ 103. I believe that CLL is inapposite to the present case. In CLL, the court recognized that the Hansen court balanced the conflicting public policy concerns raised by statutes of limitations and concluded that protecting meritorious tort claims outweighed the policy of preventing stale or fraudulent claims. See CLL, 174 Wis. 2d at 610 (referring to Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 560). The court in CLL weighed these same policy considerations in the contract context and determined that "public policy favors the current rule that the contract statute of limitations begins to run at the time of the breach." Id. at 611.
¶ 104. Weighing these same policy considerations, I believe that a Solid Waste Law enforcement action is far more akin to a tort than contract and, on balance, public policy favors extending the discovery rule. On one hand, a statute of limitations is meant to discourage stale and fraudulent claims. Corporate records may be lost or destroyed and personnel may be *183long gone. However, the test under the discovery rule is that the cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the harm. The State's enforcement action would be barred if it should have discovered the violation earlier and the statute of limitations has expired. Also, in a Solid Waste Law enforcement action, the State has the burden to prove its allegations. The State may simply be unable to prove the alleged violations if there is insufficient evidence because the violation happened so long ago.
¶ 105. The competing public policy is protecting meritorious claimants who have been as diligent as possible. When Chrysler contracted with an unlicensed hauler, which in turn dumped the hazardous waste at an unlicensed waste site, there was no possibility that the DNR could have detected the violation absent some outside action such as self-reporting or, as actually occurred, excavation of the waste site. It is impossible for the DNR to inspect every acre of land in the state to monitor possible environmental violations.
¶ 106. On balance, the State, which has been as diligent as possible, should have an opportunity to seek redress for Chrysler's violations of the Solid Waste Law. Any other outcome works a harsh result and injustice on the State and its citizens.
¶ 107. Chrysler argues that the State has control to detect violations of the Solid Waste Law because it can determine standards as needed to enforce the law. While the State does have authority to promulgate the necessary regulations, this does not garner an amount of control over the risk of loss similar to that which a contracting party has in drafting a contract and benefiting from a bargain.
¶ 108. A Solid Waste Law enforcement action is nothing like a contract action. A contract is "an agree*184ment between two or more persons which, creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing." Black's Law Dictionary, at 322 (6th ed. 1990). Under the Solid Waste Law, there is no agreement between any parties. Rather, companies such as Chrysler have an obligation to do or refrain from doing a particular thing because the legislature has expressed public policy by enacting a statute regarding certain conduct.
¶ 109. Chrysler further argues that the discovery rule should not apply to this case, in which the government is requesting civil penalties, because the public policy concerns surrounding the statute of limitations is different in penalty cases than in damages cases, such as tort.1 To the contrary, the public policies regarding statutes of limitations are the same for all statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Korth v. American Family Ins. Co., 115 Wis. 2d 326, 332, 340 N.W.2d 494 (1983) ("[S]ec. 893.54, the three-year statute of limita*185tions, is, like all statutes of limitations, designed to ensure prompt litigation of valid claims and to protect the defendant from fraudulent or stale claims brought after memories have faded or evidence has been lost." (emphasis added)). I discern that Chrysler's assertion stems from the fact that different statutes of limitation apply to claims for penalties and claims for damages. See, e.g., Open Pantry Food Marts v. Falcone, 92 Wis. 2d 807, 810-13, 286 N.W.2d 149 (Ct. App. 1979) (applying a two-year statute of limitations to penalty provisions of the Wisconsin Antitrust Law, but applying a six-year statute of limitations to the remedial provisions of the Wisconsin Antitrust Law). The underlying policies, however, are the same.
¶ 110. Chrysler and the majority also rely heavily on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in 3M v. Browner, 17 F.3d 1453 (D.C. Cir. 1994) for its conclusion that the discovery rule does not apply to environmental enforcement actions. I reject the 3M case. Its rationale is based on an unfounded and erroneous premise: "The 'discovery rule' rests on the idea that plaintiffs cannot have a tenable claim for the recovery of damages unless and until they have been harmed." 3M, 17 F.3d at 1460.
¶ 111. In Hansen, this court made clear that plaintiffs cannot have a tenable tort claim unless and until they have discovered their injury or harm. See Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 560. The plaintiff suffers harm, however, at the time that "both a negligent act and the accompanying injury have occurred." Id. at 554. The discovery rule provides that even though the plaintiffs injury, i.e., the harm, may have occurred long ago, the cause of action does not accrue until the injury is discovered. In contrast, the 3M court incorrectly began with the premise that the plaintiff does not have a *186tenable claim until the plaintiff is harmed. See 3M, 17 F.3d at 1460. This is not the discovery rule. Rather, this is the statement of law without the adoption of the discovery rule. See Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 554 ("Therefore, we have held that tort claims accrue on the date of injury.").
¶ 112. Having begun with a faulty premise, the analysis of the 3M court is also necessarily faulty. The 3M court referred to the EPA's proposal to extend the discovery rule to violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as a "discovery of violation" rule "having nothing whatever to do with the problem of latent injuries. The rationale underlying the discovery of injury rule — that a claim cannot realistically be said to accrue until the claimant has suffered harm — is completely inapposite." See 3M, 17 F.3d at 1460.
¶ 113. The 3M court was correct to point out that in the EPA's imposition of civil penalties to enforce the TSCA, "the government's burden is to prove the violation [of the TSCA]; injuries or damages resulting from the violation are not part of the cause of action; the suit may be maintained regardless of damage." 3M, 17 F.3d at 1460. Similarly, in imposing civil penalties under Wisconsin's Solid Waste Law, the DNR need not prove that the illegally dumped drums of hazardous waste leaked and caused environmental damage. The DNR only needs to prove that the provisions of the Solid Waste Law were violated — that is, that Chrysler failed to use a licensed waste hauler or failed to ensure the waste was dumped at a licensed waste facility. See Wis. Admin. Code §§ RD 51.05-51.06.
¶ 114. In this case the violative act, using an unlicensed waste hauler to haul drums containing hazardous substances to an unlicensed waste facility, occurred in early 1970. The harm or injury — the viola*187tion of the Solid Waste Law — occurred at that time. However, like a tort in which the injury is initially latent, the DNR did not and could not discover the violation of the Solid Waste Law until the harm was manifested at a later date, when the drums were uncovered in 1992. It was at that time that the State's cause of action accrued. And it was at that time that the statute of limitations began to run. Accordingly, I conclude that the State timely filed its claim.
III.
¶ 115. A further basis for extending the discovery rule to Solid Waste Law enforcement actions is that this case is closely akin to fraud cases to which the discovery rule is statutorily applied.
¶ 116. In common law fraud cases, the statute of limitations begins to run " '[w]hen the information brought home to the aggrieved party is such as to indicate where the facts constituting the fraud can be effectually discovered upon diligent inquiry. . . .'" Koehler v. Haechler, 27 Wis. 2d 275, 278, 133 N.W.2d 730 (1965) (citation omitted). Once a party is in possession of essential facts that would, upon diligent inquiry, disclose fraud, the party has a duty to make such inquiry. See id. If the party fails to make a diligent inquiry within a reasonable time, the party is nevertheless charged with knowledge of all facts which he or she may have learned through diligent inquiry. See id. Like the discovery rule articulated in Hansen, under the statutory discovery rule in fraud, the cause of action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run only when the plaintiff discovers or with due diligence could have discovered the injury or harm. See Koehler, 27 Wis. 2d at 278; Hansen, 113 Wis. 2d at 560.
*188¶ 117. The legislature, in its wisdom, extended the discovery rule to fraud because, where a party knowingly makes a false representation, the injured party generally has no way of detecting the falsehood except by some fortuitous event.
¶ 118. In this case, the State does not claim fraud; yet Chrysler knowingly and intentionally contracted with an unlicensed waste hauler. Taking a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach, Chrysler argues that it did not know that the hauler would bury the waste, ergo no fraud. But Chrysler's actions come perilously close to fraud. Having contracted with an unlicensed hauler, Chrysler should be held to know that this unlicensed hauler might well dump the hazardous waste in an unregulated, unlicensed landfill, and that environmental damage was the likely result. I conclude that the mere fact of knowingly violating the law by hiring an unlicensed hauler should subject Chrysler to the same penalty, i.e., a discovery rule, as if they knew the waste was being intentionally hidden. Chrysler should be held to know. Chrysler should not be able to escape liability for penalties because "they didn't know." Far more plausible is the explanation that they did not want to know.
IV.
¶ 119. Finally, an extension of the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law would mirror other jurisdictions which have extended the discovery rule to similar statutes.
¶ 120. The State of Washington imposes a two-year statute of limitations on environmental actions in which the State seeks to impose a forfeiture or penalty. See U.S. Oil Refining Co. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 633 P.2d 1329, 1331 (Wash. 1981) (referring to Revised *189Code of Washington (RCW) 4.16.100(2)). However, the discovery rule in Washington provides that "a statute of limitations does not begin to run until the plaintiff, using reasonable diligence, would have discovered the cause of action." U.S. Oil, 633 P.2d at 1333 (citations omitted). In U.S. Oil, the state's Department of Ecology (DOE) alleged that U.S. Oil violated its waste discharge permit under the Washington version of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The court concluded:
Since U.S. Oil did not properly report its discharges, discovery of the violations was delayed until DOE suspected that monitoring reports were inaccurate and investigated. Without a discovery rule, industries can discharge pollutants, and by failing to report the violation, can escape penalties.
Id. at 1333-34.
¶ 121. Like this court in Hansen, the Washington Supreme Court extended the discovery rule by balancing the competing public policies raised by a statute of limitations: prohibiting stale and fraudulent claims and allowing meritorious claims. "That balancing test has dictated the application of the [discovery] rule where the plaintiff lacks the means or ability to ascertain that a wrong has been committed." Id. at 1334.
[I]f the [discovery] rule were not applied the plaintiff would be denied meaningful opportunity to bring a suit. . . .Not applying the rule in this case would penalize the plaintiff and reward the clever defendant. Neither the purpose for statutes of limitation nor justice is served when the statute runs while the information concerning the injury is in the defendant's hands.
Id. Applying a discovery rule to environmental enforcement actions "discourages the government from *190unreasonably delaying in bringing actions, while protecting the public from harm resulting from an inability to prosecute claims for violations that could not reasonably have been discovered." U.S. v. Aluminum Co. of American, 824 F. Supp. 640, 646 (D.C. Tex. 1993) (citing U.S. v. Winward Properties, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 690, 694 (N.D. Ga. 1993)).
¶ 122. The State points to several other jurisdictions that have extended the discovery rule to environmental enforcement actions. See Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey v. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., 913 F.2d 64 (3rd Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Winward Properties, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 690 (N.D. Ga. 1993); Reichelt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 969 F. Supp. 519 (N.D. Ind. 1996); Atlantic States Legal Found. V. Al Tech Specialty, 635 F. Supp. 284 (N.D. N.Y. 1986); Aluminum Co. of America, 824 F. Supp. 640; U.S. v. Hobbs, 736 F. Supp. 1406 (E.D. Va. 1990).
¶ 123. These cases cited by the State involved alleged violations of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), and usually the entity bringing suit discovered the violations through information reported by the defendant, as required by reporting provisions of the statute. Like the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law, an injury in the traditional sense of the word is not an element of violating the Clean Water Act. Like the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law, mere violation of the Clean Water Act's provisions triggers enforcement of the statute. Like the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law, the enforcing agency may impose penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act. Like the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law, violations of the Clean Water Act are difficult to discover and may be discovered long after the violation occurs. However, unlike the majority's decision in this case to not extend the discovery rule to violations of the Solid *191Waste Law, federal courts have extended the discovery rule to violations of the Clean Water Act.
¶ 124. "[A] statute of limitations must be 'interpreted in light of the general purposes of the statute and its other provisions, and with due regard to those practical ends which are to be served by any limitation of the time within which an action must be brought.'" Aluminum Co. of America, 824 F. Supp. at 644-45 (quoting United States v. Core Laboratories, Inc., 759 F.2d 480, 481-82 (5th Cir. 1985)). Extending the discovery rule to violations of the CWA is consistent with the Act's purpose to "protect human health, welfare, and the environment, to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants to waters of the United States, and to restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Id. at 645 (citing 33 USC § 1251(a)).
¶ 125. Without the discovery rule, the entity violating the CWA would benefit from the EPA's inability to inspect and immediately discover violations — a result which would frustrate the purposes of the CWA. See id. at 647. Without the discovery rule, polluters would be encouraged to hide violations until the statute of limitations expires. See Reichelt, 969 F. Supp. at 522. Accordingly, a cause of action under the CWA for civil penalties does not accrue when violations of the act actually occur, but rather when the violations are discovered. See, e.g., Reichelt, 969 F. Supp. at 522; Aluminum Co. of America, 824 F. Supp. at 647; Hobbs, 736 F. Supp. at 1409.
It would have been practically impossible for the plaintiff to have discovered the alleged violations of the defendant on its own. It is only when reports are filed with the E.P.A. that the public becomes aware *192that violations have occurred. To hold that the statute begins to run when violations actually occur, as opposed to when they are discovered, would impede, if not foreclose, the remedial benefits of the statute.
Atlantic States Legal Found., 635 F. Supp. at 287-88 (citations omitted) (regarding citizens suit under the CWA).
¶ 126. The Wisconsin legislature expressed the purpose of the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law in a Statement of Policies and Purposes included in the enacting statute:
(2) Inefficient and improper methods of waste disposal have caused an ever increasing pollution of our vital air, land and water resources threatening the utility of our resources and the quality of the environment in which we live. The problems of waste disposal endanger the public health, safety and welfare, create public nuisances, result in scenic blight and adversely affect land values.
(3) The close interrelationship of air, land and water pollution requires concerted action to prevent the worsening of these problems. . . .Immediate remedial action is needed to protect our valuable resources.
(4) It is the purpose of this act to grant the necessary powers to organize a comprehensive program to enhance the quality, management and protection of the state's air and land resources.
§ 1, ch. 83, Laws of 1967. This legislative intent was repeated as a Preamble to the Department of Natural Resources Solid Waste Disposal Standards, a copy of which Chrysler received on December 15, 1969. As expressed by the legislature, the purpose of the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law is to prevent environmental pollution and to remediate existing problems. As the *193court expressed in Aluminum Co. of America with regard to the CWA, extending the discovery rule to violations of the Solid Waste Law is consistent with the statute's purpose.
¶ 127. For all of the above reasons, I respectfully dissent to that part of the majority opinion that fails to extend the discovery rule to violations of the Wisconsin Solid Waste Law.
Some federal jurisdictions that have applied the discovery rule to an environmental action for civil penalties have declined to extend the rule to the equitable relief of an injunction. See Reichelt v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 969 F. Supp. 519, 521 (N.D. Ind. 1996); U.S. v. Hobbs, 736 F. Supp. 1406, 1410 (E.D. Va. 1990). Whether a claim for injunctive relief is barred is a determined under the doctrine of laches. See Reichelt, 969 F. Supp. at 521. "Laches requires dismissal if a party did not pursue the case diligently and the other party is prejudiced." Id. (citations omitted); see also Hobbs, 736 F. Supp. at 1410 (citing Benedict v. City of New York, 250 U.S. 321, 328 (1919)).
I need not determine whether the State's request for relief in the form of an injunction is barred by the statute of limitations or doctrine of laches. The injunctive relief available under the Solid Waste Law, cleaning up the illegally dumped drums, has already been completed. The remediation left to be completed, cleaning up the soil and ground water contamination, is actionable under the Wisconsin Spills Law.