Those who speculate that Jim Engh spends a lot of money with his style of design are, I think, largely mistaken ... he's kept the costs down by often building things narrow, so the savings in irrigation pretty much cancel out any additional earthmoving costs. (He doesn't build courses which are impossibly long either, which also saves money.) And you can't really blame him that much of his work is in the Rocky Mountains, where the extra costs of dealing with rock and drainage problems and low rainfall climates are a given for any designer.
However, Matt, the fact that I've built a couple of courses (out of 25) where we moved a lot of earth around, doesn't really prove anything about my style of design other than it's not too easy to peg. In contrast, has Jim Engh done a course where he didn't move much earth around? (None of the four I've seen would qualify, but I've only seen four, so it's an honest question.)
I will be curious to see what he builds on those nine new holes at Carne.