Yes I live in New Mexico and I still supplement vitamin D, for many reasons.
Read below, understand how the body creates Vitamin D, why it’s so important and be careful to get enough. Diet is a great source as is the sun, sunscreen is important but some sun exposure or supplementation is crucial to long term health. For the full article go to this link, Vit D and Health
Vitamin D and Health
Optimal serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for bone and general health have not been established; they are likely to vary at each stage of life, depending on the physiological measures selected [1,2,6]. Also, as stated earlier, while serum 25(OH)D functions as a biomarker of exposure to vitamin D (from sun, food, and dietary supplements), the extent to which such levels serve as a biomarker of effect (i.e., health outcomes) is not clearly established .
Furthermore, while serum 25(OH)D levels increase in response to increased vitamin D intake, the relationship is non-linear for reasons that are not entirely clear . The increase varies, for example, by baseline serum levels and duration of supplementation. Increasing serum 25(OH)D to >50 nmol/L requires more vitamin D than increasing levels from a baseline <50 nmol/L. There is a steeper rise in serum 25(OH)D when the dose of vitamin D is <1,000 IU/day; a lower, more flattened response is seen at higher daily doses. When the dose is ≥1,000 IU/day, the rise in serum 25(OH)D is approximately 1 nmol/L for each 40 IU of intake. In studies with a dose ≤600 IU/day, the rise is serum 25(OH)D was approximately 2.3 nmol/L for each 40 IU of vitamin D consumed .
In March 2007, a group of vitamin D and nutrition researchers published a controversial and provocative editorial contending that the desirable concentration of 25(OH)D was ≥75 nmol/L (≥30 ng/ml) . They noted that approximately 1,700 IU/day of vitamin D are needed to raise serum 25(OH)D concentrations from 50 to 80 nmol/L (20–32 ng/mL).
However, the FNB committee that established DRIs for vitamin D extensively reviewed a long list of potential health relationships on which recommendations for vitamin D intake might be based . These health relationships included resistance to chronic diseases (such as cancer and cardiovascular diseases), physiological parameters (such as immune response or levels of parathyroid hormone), and functional measures (such as skeletal health and physical performance and falls). With the exception of measures related to bone health, the health relationships examined were either not supported by adequate evidence to establish cause and effect, or the conflicting nature of the available evidence could not be used to link health benefits to particular levels of intake of vitamin D or serum measures of 25(OH)D with any level of confidence.
More than 40 million adults in the United States have or are at risk of developing osteoporosis, a disease characterized by low bone mass and structural deterioration of bone tissue that increases bone fragility and significantly increases the risk of bone fractures . Osteoporosis is most often associated with inadequate calcium intakes, but insufficient vitamin D contributes to osteoporosis by reducing calcium absorption . Although rickets and osteomalacia are extreme examples of the effects of vitamin D deficiency, osteoporosis is an example of a long-term effect of calcium and vitamin D insufficiency. Adequate storage levels of vitamin D maintain bone strength and might help prevent osteoporosis in older adults, non-ambulatory individuals who have difficulty exercising, postmenopausal women, and individuals on chronic steroid therapy .
Normal bone is constantly being remodeled. During menopause, the balance between these processes changes, resulting in more bone being resorbed than rebuilt. Hormone therapy with estrogen and progesterone might be able to delay the onset of osteoporosis. However, some medical groups and professional societies recommend that postmenopausal women consider using other agents to slow or stop bone resorption because of the potential adverse health effects of hormone therapy [40,41,42].
Most supplementation trials of the effects of vitamin D on bone health also include calcium, so it is difficult to isolate the effects of each nutrient. Among postmenopausal women and older men, supplements of both vitamin D and calcium result in small increases in bone mineral density throughout the skeleton. They also help to reduce fractures in institutionalized older populations, although the benefit is inconsistent in community-dwelling individuals [1,2,43]. Vitamin D supplementation alone appears to have no effect on risk reduction for fractures nor does it appear to reduce falls among the elderly [1,2,43]; one widely-cited meta-analysis suggesting a protective benefit of supplemental vitamin D against falls  has been severely critiqued . However, a large study of women aged ≥69 years followed for an average of 4.5 years found both lower (<50 nmol/L [<20 ng/mL]) and higher(≥75 nmol/L [≥30 ng/mL]) 25(OH)D levels at baseline to be associated with a greater risk of frailty . Women should consult their healthcare providers about their needs for vitamin D (and calcium) as part of an overall plan to prevent or treat osteoporosis.
Laboratory and animal evidence as well as epidemiologic data suggest that vitamin D status could affect cancer risk. Strong biological and mechanistic bases indicate that vitamin D plays a role in the prevention of colon, prostate, and breast cancers. Emerging epidemiologic data suggest that vitamin D may have a protective effect against colon cancer, but the data are not as strong for a protective effect against prostate and breast cancer, and are variable for cancers at other sites [1,46,47]. Studies do not consistently show a protective or no effect, however. One study of Finnish smokers, for example, found that subjects in the highest quintile of baseline vitamin D status had a threefold higher risk of developing pancreatic cancer . A recent review found an increased risk of pancreatic cancer associated with high levels of serum 25(OH)D (≥100 nmol/L or ≥40 ng/mL) .
Vitamin D emerged as a protective factor in a prospective, cross-sectional study of 3,121 adults aged ≥50 years (96% men) who underwent a colonoscopy. The study found that 10% had at least one advanced cancerous lesion. Those with the highest vitamin D intakes (>645 IU/day) had a significantly lower risk of these lesions . However, the Women’s Health Initiative, in which 36,282 postmenopausal women of various races and ethnicities were randomly assigned to receive 400 IU vitamin D plus 1,000 mg calcium daily or a placebo, found no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of colorectal cancers over 7 years . More recently, a clinical trial focused on bone health in 1,179 postmenopausal women residing in rural Nebraska found that subjects supplemented daily with calcium (1,400–1,500 mg) and vitamin D3 (1,100 IU) had a significantly lower incidence of cancer over 4 years compared with women taking a placebo . The small number of cancers (50) precludes generalizing about a protective effect from either or both nutrients or for cancers at different sites. This caution is supported by an analysis of 16,618 participants in NHANES III (1988–1994), in which total cancer mortality was found to be unrelated to baseline vitamin D status . However, colorectal cancer mortality was inversely related to serum 25(OH)D concentrations. A large observational study with participants from 10 western European countries also found a strong inverse association between prediagnostic 25(OH)D concentrations and risk of colorectal cancer .
Further research is needed to determine whether vitamin D inadequacy in particular increases cancer risk, whether greater exposure to the nutrient is protective, and whether some individuals could be at increased risk of cancer because of vitamin D exposure [46,55]. Taken together, however, studies to date do not support a role for vitamin D, with or without calcium, in reducing the risk of cancer .
A growing body of research suggests that vitamin D might play some role in the prevention and treatment of type 1  and type 2 diabetes , hypertension , glucose intolerance , multiple sclerosis , and other medical conditions [61,62]. However, most evidence for these roles comes from in vitro, animal, and epidemiological studies, not the randomized clinical trials considered to be more definitive . Until such trials are conducted, the implications of the available evidence for public health and patient care will be debated. One meta-analysis found use of vitamin D supplements to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall mortality from any cause [63,64], but a reanalysis of the data found no association . A systematic review of these and other health outcomes related to vitamin D and calcium intakes, both alone and in combination, was published in August 2009 .