[okie01]

That's probably because the photo you saw was an "after" picture.

Like I said -- it was grass-covered, with no evidence of any fill.

[shhrubbery!]

Grass cover is easily grown. Doesn't mean there's not fill under it.

Check out these photos and maps:

Sackett's empty lot
Sure looks like a lot of gravel to me. Btw, this photo is actually posted by the people who are DEFENDING the Sacketts!

Here's an aerial view:
Bing aerial view
The Sackett's lot is pretty obvious. It's the one that's completely denuded and light in color (probably covered with light gravel).

Cf. this diagram of the Sackett's property (posted by a Spokane newspaper):
cleared area of Sackett property

wetlands map of area surrounding Sackett property
US Fish & Wildlife Service wetlands map

[shhrubbery!]

Oh and here's another aerial photo from the posted article (I missed this first time around)....

Sackett 0.63 acre parcel

Looking at this photo along with the Fish & Wildlife Service wetlands map posted above, it's pretty obvious to me there are wetlands immediately to the north and west of the Sackett's lot ... which, as you can see, has been completely stripped and probably filled in this picture.

If you read the briefs filed with the courts you will see as a "finding of fact" that the Sacketts filled approximately 0.5 acres of their 0.63 acre lot. That means they filled in almost 80% of the lot.